A Best of 3 Sets Tournament held once in 4 years is a fluke/irrelevant for a Tennis Player, agree or disagree ?

[Better_Call_Raul]

Today it means something, so we evaluate accordingly. At one point, the Davis Cup was clearly a huge deal, at the very least in between any Masters event and the YEC, and maybe even on par or above the YEC in some cases, so we can evaluate matches played there accordingly. Today it means nothing, I don't even know if it still exists.

Correct. It all depends on the mood of the public and what the media wishes to hype.
The Davis Cup used to be very intense and prestigious. 5 sets. Probably down to 3 sets now.
Today, people barely pay attention to Davis Cup.

And nobody has yet to explain why winning the Olympics is any more difficult than winning the Davis Cup.
If anything, Davis Cup win is more difficult than an Olympics win.

 

[DSH]

What connection does tennis at olympics not relevant have with Djokovic as a idol ? Are you stupid ? I mean this is such a silly deduction man...

Your thread makes no sense and you only intend to disparage the importance of the Olympic Games in tennis with a stupid analogy.

 

[DSH]

IF he wins Roland Garros for #25 that might change the calculus and there might be a case for skipping London for Olympic training.
A;though it is concerning that he is contemplating skipping anything. Suggesting that he is not physically capable them all.
Or does he have Alcaraz/Sinner on his mind. Is he dodging them?

Alcaraz will not cramp again against Joker at RG, the only reason why the Serbian wolf was able to win there at his old age.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Alcaraz will not cramp again against Joker at RG, the only reason why the Serbian wolf was able to win there at his old age.

Skip Wimbledon to train Olympics. Badly lose to Alcaraz/Sinner/Ruud at Roland Garros. And lose again at Paris Olympics.
What a mess.

 

[Razer]

Your thread makes no sense and you only intend to disparage the importance of the Olympic Games in tennis with a stupid analogy.

Most Nadal fans are 2008 born because they are following tennis only from 2008, not before, most Djokovic fans are 2011 born because before that nobody cared/even noticed the serbian. You might be a newbie from one of these 2 categories, possibly the 2008+ one, however I am not and thats why I don't see any relevance for the olympics.

As @metsman mentioned earlier, the alphas like Pete from previous eras never cared for Olympics and even when he was retiring (I have clear memory of that) there was no mention of any olympics or such BS. Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf skipped the 1996 Olympics which Agassi won and Leander Paes got the Bronze Medal there. This is a weird trivia which I had no knowledge of in 2002 when Pete retired, I knew of this in 2010s when I read it somewhere, so thats how important your sh1t olympics is.....

I dont care what Nadal or Djokovic think of Olympics or what their newbie fans think. The Olympics does not matter for me because thats how I've always perceived it since the beginning, why should I change my view now?

 

[JustMy2Cents]

Most Nadal fans are 2008 born because they are following tennis only from 2008, not before, most Djokovic fans are 2011 born because before that nobody cared/even noticed the serbian. You might be a newbie from one of these 2 categories, possibly the 2008+ one, however I am not and thats why I don't see any relevance for the olympics.

As @metsman mentioned earlier, the alphas like Pete from previous eras never cared for Olympics and even when he was retiring (I have clear memory of that) there was no mention of any olympics or such BS. Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf skipped the 1996 Olympics which Agassi won and Leander Paes got the Bronze Medal there. This is a weird trivia which I had no knowledge of in 2002 when Pete retired, I knew of this in 2010s when I read it somewhere, so thats how important your sh1t olympics is.....

I dont care what Nadal or Djokovic think of Olympics of their newbie fans think. The Olympics does not matter for me because thats how I've always perceived it since the beginning, why should I change my view now?

if your reference point is Pete-Agassi era, why do you include masters performance to inflate Djo's status? Pete never bothered
also AO was never important in those days, Agassi missed many AOs.... so you should not value Djo's AOs as well.

you are just bending over backwards to diss Olympics referring to Pete era.
either stick to all the values of that era or none

 

[Razer]

if your reference point is Pete-Agassi era, why do you include masters performance to inflate Djo's status? Pete never bothered
also AO was never important in those days, Agassi missed many AOs.... so you should not value Djo's AOs as well.

you are just bending over backwards to diss Olympics referring to Pete era.
either stick to all the values of that era or none

It is all about Slams for me, I dont care for tournaments like Masters ever.

I have never watched any masters tournament live in my life...all of the best non slam matches I have watched were after they were held, never live.

AOs are different, the AOs have always been valued when I have followed Tennis, so why I not care for them ???

 

[metsman]

Correct. It all depends on the mood of the public and what the media wishes to hype.
The Davis Cup used to be very intense and prestigious. 5 sets. Probably down to 3 sets now.
Today, people barely pay attention to Davis Cup.

And nobody has yet to explain why winning the Olympics is any more difficult than winning the Davis Cup.
If anything, Davis Cup win is more difficult than an Olympics win.

I've seen great great players play some of the matches of their career at Davis Cup, never seen this at the Olympics, besides such standouts like Massu and Murray.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

I dont care what Nadal or Djokovic think of Olympics of their newbie fans think. The Olympics does not matter for me because thats how I've always perceived it since the beginning, why should I change my view now?

Each player can decide for himself how important or not the Olympics are to him.
Each fan can decide for himself how important or not the Olympics are to him.

The problem is with these people suddenly coming out of the closet to elevate the Olympics simply to attack a player who has not won the Olympics.

The other problem, which you are being accused of, is suddenly coming out of the closet to denigrate the Olympics because a player has not won one.

But since you have always had a low opinion of the Olympics you are being consistent.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Zed is the reigning Gold Medalist Champion.
Can Zed repeat?

 

[JustMy2Cents]

It is all about Slams for me, I dont care for tournaments like Masters ever.

I have never watched any masters tournament live in my life...all of the best non slam matches I have watched were after they were held, never live.

AOs are different, the AOs have always been valued when I have followed Tennis, so why I not care for them ???

if only slams matter, then let's just take slam h2h ... Rafa trumps both Djo 11-7 and Fed 10-4. Pretty telling, huh?

you were referring to Pete as reference point for you, his contemporary Agassi skipped so many AOs. Even Pate skipped in 1999.

All slams being equal (more or less) is a recent concept

 

[Razer]

if only slams matter, then let's just take slam h2h ... Rafa trumps both Djo 11-7 and Fed 10-4. Pretty telling, huh?

you were referring to Pete as reference point for you, his contemporary Agassi skipped so many AOs. Even Pate skipped in 1999.

All slams being equal (more or less) is a recent concept

Rafa can lead H2Hs all he want but if he does not lead in Slam count then he is a loser.

Rafa even leads in Aus open H2H to Federer but Federer leads the title count 6-2, so in the end title counts will triumph over H2H.

 

[dadadas]

IOC sports revenue rankings​

By Reuters
May 29, 2013

ST PETERSBURG, Russia, May 29 (Reuters) - The International
Olympic Committee on Wednesday recalculated the rankings of the
26 sports federations in the Olympics to determine revenue
distribution from the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro.

2016 Rankings

Group A.
Aquatics, athletics, gymnastics.

Group B
Basketball, cycling, football, tennis, volleyball.

Group C
Archery, badminton, boxing, judo, rowing, shooting, table
tennis, weightlifting.

Group D
Canoe/kayak, equestrian, fencing, handball, hockey, sailing,
taekwondo, triathlon, wrestling.

Group E
Modern pentathlon, golf, rugby.

- - - -

Under the previous breakdown used for the 2012 Olympics,
athletics was awarded about $47 million, Group B sports received
about $22 million each, Group C $16 million and sports in Group
D about $14 million.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3N0EA2F6/

 

[dadadas]

in cycling, golf, football, tennis, boxing, etc... Olympics gold medals are not the most prestigious prize to win.

 

[dadadas]

However is ATP finals a truly prestigious competition?

from 1971 to 1989. The Masters Grand Prix was a year-end showpiece event between the best players on the men's tour, but did not count for any world ranking points.

In 1990, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) took over the running of the men's tour and replaced the Masters with the "ATP Tour World Championships". World ranking points were now at stake, with an undefeated champion earning the same number of points they would earn for winning one of the four Grand Slam events. The ITF, who continued to run the Grand Slam tournaments, created a rival year-end event known as the Grand Slam Cup, which was contested by the 16 players with the best records in the Grand Slam tournaments of the season (1990–99).

In December 1999, the ATP and ITF agreed to discontinue the two separate events and create a new jointly-owned event called the "Tennis Masters Cup". As with the Masters Grand Prix and the ATP Tour World Championships, the Tennis Masters Cup was contested by eight players and teams.

it got rebranded multiple times. And the name does not get fancier, in soccer 1st divison got rebranded into "Premier" league or "Super" league while European Cup became "Champions" league.

ATP wanted that name "World Championship" and hoped to compete against the slams organizers but the name "World Championship" did not last.

 

[Razer]

However is ATP finals a truly prestigious competition?

it got rebranded multiple times. And the name does not get fancier, in soccer 1st divison got rebranded into "Premier" league or "Super" league while European Cup became "Champions" league.

ATP wanted that name "World Championship" and hoped to compete against the slams organizers but the name "World Championship" did not last.

With best of 3 format and the lack of a fixed venue, I feel ATP Finals have lacked seriousness over the years. Tennis should encourage more Slams to be added and less important tournaments removed. That is the right way to go.

 

[dadadas]

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Maybe it matters more for Nadal and Djokovic than Federer, but they have a history of prioritizing and peaking at mickey mouse events such as Roland Garross and the Miami Masters so I wouldn't trust them about this too much compared to the tennis alpha males.

This alone is ban-worthy also lol at calling Fed the alpha male.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I don't understand the logic of events being less meaningful ɓecause they take place only every four years, but besides that: an event is primarily meaningful depending on how players (especially top players) are valuing it and it seems to me, that in the last years it was pretty important for all the top guys. To equate it with normal 500s or even Masters is ridiculous.

 

[Razer]

I don't understand the logic of events being less meaningful ɓecause they take place only every four years, but besides that: an event is primarily meaningful depending on how players (especially top players) are valuing it and it seems to me, that in the last years it was pretty important for all the top guys. To equate it with normal 500s or even Masters is ridiculous.

Olympics for Tennis is useless if it is held once in 4 years for many reasons

01. Suppose you get injured 4 years apart then you basically have no chance of proving that you are the best. I already gave the example in the OP where I shows how slam counts of Nadal become 0 because of his injury pattern. Even for Federer his concentrated dominance of 2004-07 vanished if you make it 1 an year. A 1 trick pony like Nadal has 0 ATP Final wins after trying for 2 decades but we are being asked why Djokovic doesn't have a silly medal at the exho held once in a bluemoon? Hold the exho every year, even Nole will grab 2-3 medals there.

02. Format - Best of 3 ... Now that is so so so useless ...... a grand occasion like the Olympics should have something like a best of 7 sets tournament between the best 16 or best 32 players, something like that which will hold importance you know? Otherwise what is the use is having a BO3 tourney with losers like Zverev winning medals? Are we supposed to take it seriously? As @Kralingen asked somewhere, did wining the medal change your view of Zverev? I am sure not, then what's the use of that?

03. Importance of the event ? That is totally irrelevant. Number of players being eager to play an event should not have any bearing on how it is seen because interest never determines how hard a format is. You could ask me how many men are interested in trying to win 14 french open on clay and my answer would be 0. However if you ask me how many men want to go to a strip bar then answer would be more than the number of men who want to break records and try it.... So not necessarily tougher... I mean how can guys showing interest for a BEST OF 3 tournament be taken seriously? Anyone in form can win the BO3 tourney but not anyone can win BO5, thats why you should convert the olympics into an all rounds BEST OF 5 like Slams to actually make it serious

04. No calendar year points being given..... Damn... this means the event is so useless that you dont even feel the need to reward the players ????

 

[Razer]

This alone is ban-worthy also lol at calling Fed the alpha male.

IMO I think Sampras and Nadal have been the alphas, especially Nadal whose career I've followed from the first day, he always had a body language of an alpha even when he played Srichappan in 2003 on Grass..... that kind of aura Fed lacked as a teenager even though he later became the apex predator of the tour... but alpha? .... not sure about that...... even Nole was nevr an alpha... he was thin and scrawny types, yes his attitude was alpha like when he stood up to Fedal but his body language and his game was far far far from it.... it took him many many years to reach there... so even he is no alpha.

Sampras and Nadal were probably the only alphas among these goat candidates, other than them you have Stan, Safin type fellas who were alpha in their own way...

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

No prize money or ranking points = exho

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

a grand occasion like the Olympics should have something like a best of 7 sets tournament

 

[Razer]

Yes why not ?

Make it best 5 sets until final and the final should be Best of 7 Sets.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Yes why not ?

Make it best 5 sets until final and the final should be Best of 7 Sets.

It is not clear why tennis was even added to the Olympics. It was added very recently. 1988.
Who pushed for this? We already have Davis Cup every year. And we have 4 slams and 9 Masters and YEC every year.
It is abundantly clear who the best players in world are every year.

What is the purpose of this tennis event that is held every 4 years? What exactly are they seeking to determine?

It looks to be about hype and ceremony and getting the general public to watch tennis every 4 years.

 

[Sudacafan]

I voted no just because of Djokovic situation, which I am sure is the only reason why the OP created this thread.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Olympics for Tennis is useless if it is held once in 4 years for many reasons

01. Suppose you get injured 4 years apart then you basically have no chance of proving that you are the best. I already gave the example in the OP where I shows how slam counts of Nadal become 0 because of his injury pattern. Even for Federer his concentrated dominance of 2004-07 vanished if you make it 1 an year. A 1 trick pony like Nadal has 0 ATP Final wins after trying for 2 decades but we are being asked why Djokovic doesn't have a silly medal at the exho held once in a bluemoon? Hold the exho every year, even Nole will grab 2-3 medals there.

02. Format - Best of 3 ... Now that is so so so useless ...... a grand occasion like the Olympics should have something like a best of 7 sets tournament between the best 16 or best 32 players, something like that which will hold importance you know? Otherwise what is the use is having a BO3 tourney with losers like Zverev winning medals? Are we supposed to take it seriously? As @Kralingen asked somewhere, did wining the medal change your view of Zverev? I am sure not, then what's the use of that?

03. Importance of the event ? That is totally irrelevant. Number of players being eager to play an event should not have any bearing on how it is seen because interest never determines how hard a format is. You could ask me how many men are interested in trying to win 14 french open on clay and my answer would be 0. However if you ask me how many men want to go to a strip bar then answer would be more than the number of men who want to break records and try it.... So not necessarily tougher... I mean how can guys showing interest for a BEST OF 3 tournament be taken seriously? Anyone in form can win the BO3 tourney but not anyone can win BO5, thats why you should convert the olympics into an all rounds BEST OF 5 like Slams to actually make it serious

04. No calendar year points being given..... Damn... this means the event is so useless that you dont even feel the need to reward the players ????

01.injuries are part of the game. Could be one year could be four years. If a player only gets few chances to win Olympics he should better take it.
02. Lol at Bo7. As for Bo5, I agree with you they should at least make the final and bronze match Bo5 as it was in the past. Preferably they should make all rounds best of five.
03. Sorry what? How can it be irrelevant? How players value a tournament is THE decisive element on the importance of it. Why do you think Wimbledon is important? Because for most players it is the one they most wanna win. This also decides how much they will go all out at it. If most players don't give a sh*t about a tournament and don't bother to show up, how can it ever be relevant? How fans or forum members see it is completely irrelevant. Nobody says the Olympics are more relevant than slams but definitely more than masters and on par with YEC.
04. The reason no points are given is that it would mess up the rankings awarding points for a tourney that only takes place once every four years. Davis Cup also didn't provide ranking points for the most part and was nevertheless for some time almost on the level of slams. The fact that players value at highly despite no points shows its importance. Imagine Miami would not give ranking points, nobody would show up.

 

[Phenomenal]

TTW is a joke.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Considering that Zedrot also won the YEC yet it didn’t change my view of him does that mean the YEC is irrelevant? Ofcn, it’s just not and it never will be on the same level as any of the schlems. The same thing applies to the Olympics. The detractors of the Olympics are playing this all or nothing game when assigning value to it and we all know why. According to them it’s either the pinnacle of the sport or it’s worth nothing it all which is completely ridiculous. We all know if their favorite players (PETE, Fraud, and Joker) had won it suddenly the value of them would skyrocket. It’s no different from the troll RAFANS calling the YEC an exho. Both are just coping for a hole in their idols’ resume.

 

[Phenomenal]

Most Nadal fans are 2008 born because they are following tennis only from 2008, not before, most Djokovic fans are 2011 born because before that nobody cared/even noticed the serbian. You might be a newbie from one of these 2 categories, possibly the 2008+ one, however I am not and thats why I don't see any relevance for the olympics.

As @metsman mentioned earlier, the alphas like Pete from previous eras never cared for Olympics and even when he was retiring (I have clear memory of that) there was no mention of any olympics or such BS. Pete Sampras and Steffi Graf skipped the 1996 Olympics which Agassi won and Leander Paes got the Bronze Medal there. This is a weird trivia which I had no knowledge of in 2002 when Pete retired, I knew of this in 2010s when I read it somewhere, so thats how important your sh1t olympics is.....

I dont care what Nadal or Djokovic think of Olympics or what their newbie fans think. The Olympics does not matter for me because thats how I've always perceived it since the beginning, why should I change my view now?

This is not important NOW whether how much top players cared during 90's or earlier. Because it past we are no longer in that era. Yeah, you could say Agassi's OG shouldn't be seen as big as Murray or Nadal's. Because thats past we are no longer in that era. All players united now about the importance of OG. Will stay as the most imp event after slams until it lose its importance.

Had Djokovic and Federer played epic London 2012 final on grass it would be talked to the death.

 

[Hitman]

It is one of the big titles.

The only one that Djokovic doesn't have.

It is not however anywhere close to a slam.

 

[Purestriker]

I voted no just because of Djokovic situation, which I am sure is the only reason why the OP created this thread.

OP is in lala land.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Interesting to hear the young guns talking about the importance of Olympia. Pretty sure that the success of some of the biggest tennis stars as raised it’s value greatly compared to two decades ago…

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

The more you try to find ways to define it as irrelevant, the more its importance becomes a relevant topic, which in itself makes it very relevant. Especially in the world we live in, where what is being talked about, what is "trending", is deemed of the utmost importance.