Forget about bronze and silver. A Gold Medal Is The Only Medal That Counts In Olympic Tennis.

[Bartelby]

American media mostly publish medal tallies based on total medals in contravention of Olympic rules because it "vaults" America over China.

 

[Bartelby]

Even with Court's divine powers, she couldn't win tournaments that didn't exist. Putting all those AO titles in the vault was enough of a gift.

The GOAT Margaret would have dominated Olympics.
Court be taking home 3 Gold Medals today in Singles,Doubles and Mixed.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I don't see people counting Mac's doubles slam titles with the singles one.

Singles and Doubles are different things, everyone knows it.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

In terms of the medal table, sure, and for certain athletes, absolutely, but there are plenty of athletes who, for a variety of reasons, would consider snagging any medal a glorious prize.

It's easy to sit at your keyboard and type up a storm as to why you're all about the gold, but to those who spend their lives working their butts off for minimal reward, that's comically small-brained thinking.

Dunderhead. As already stated: We are talking specifically one event: Olympic Tennis .

These are not amateurs. Amateurs in archery would be thrilled with bronze.
These all ATP pros. First place is the only prize. Only a very few elite, the Top 30 in the world, that are realistically contending for medals.

Tiafoe, Shelton, and many others opted out. They choose to focus on US Open.
First place in the US Open. Third place in the US Open is meaningless to them.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Good point. Hence in tennis singles gold is like WTF level.

So insane achievement in singles or doubles to win gold.

But as far as tennis legacy not a huge difference.

Agreed

 

[duaneeo]

In the true 'spirit' of the Olympics, winning a medal for your country counts regardless of the color, no?

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

American media mostly publish medal tallies based on total medals in contravention of Olympic rules because it "vaults" America over China.

It is not the IOC's place to tell people how to count medals.
Maybe the IOC can first work on figuring out what a man is.

In the true 'spirit' of the Olympics, winning a medal for your country counts regardless of the color, no?

The spirit of the Olympics died when ATP pros were allowed to enter.
And for ATP pros, there is only first place.

 

[ibbi]

Dunderhead. As already stated: We are talking specifically one event: Olympic Tennis .

These are not amateurs. Amateurs in archery would be thrilled with bronze.
These all ATP pros. First place is the only prize. Only a very few elite, the Top 30 in the world, that are realistically contending for medals.

Tiafoe, Shelton, and many others opted out. They choose to focus on US Open.
First place in the US Open. Third place in the US Open is meaningless to them.

Yeah, no, still disagree. The aim is to get a medal for your country, and the chance comes once every 4 years. It's not about you and your personal pride. Comparing it to a grand slam runner-up is, how you say... Dunderheaded.

Bronze is kind of more meaningful than silver in that way because it requires you to regroup and get a win when the dream of gold is gone where silver is just a loss, but a medal is a medal. Hence the reactions of those who win the semifinal and guarantee themselves one.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Bronze is kind of more meaningful than silver in that way

Thank goodness we were not subjected to FAA on the podium sporting your precious bronze after Alcaraz thoroughly embarrassed him in the SF.

 

[ibbi]

Thank goodness we were not subjected to FAA on the podium sporting your favourite bronze after Alcaraz thoroughly embarrassed him in the SF.

Well, he did make a podium and get his bronze, I'm sure he'd have liked the pair of them though, sure.

 

[duaneeo]

The spirit of the Olympics died when ATP pros were allowed to enter.

Then so has its importance/meaning, no?

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Then so has its importance/meaning, no?

I don't believe tennis needs to be an Olympic event. It has only recently been re-introduced since 1988.
We have 4 majors every year with players from every country. Everyone knows who the best countries and best players are.
It is all rather pointless, over-hyped and panders to the casual viewer who tunes in to tennis every 4 years.

 

[Mainad]

I can't say I agree. No one disparages Phelps for his relay gold won with the heroics of Lezak in 2008. If you perform for your team and you win gold that's your gold.

It's really the same as the difference between singles and doubles. No-one thinks a doubles champion is the equivalent of a singles champion. The IOC confuses the isuue by presenting a medal to each of a winning team when really there should just be 1 medal for the team because it represents just 1 medal for the country.

 

[Mainad]

I don't believe tennis needs to be an Olympic event. It has only recently been re-introduced since 1988.
We have 4 majors every year with players from every country. Everyone knows who the best countries and best players are.
It is all rather pointless, over-hyped and panders to the casual viewer who tunes in to tennis every 4 years.

But who cares about the casual viewer? It's only us tennis fans who follow the sport and the players who count.

 

[weakera]

It's really the same as the difference between singles and doubles. No-one thinks a doubles champion is the equivalent of a singles champion. The IOC confuses the isuue by presenting a medal to each of a winning team when really there should just be 1 medal for the team because it represents just 1 medal for the country.

No one thinks that because ultimately it's a different tournament and a different trophy won but in the Olympics everyone is playing for the same trophy and their shared country medal count.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I believe only Serena.

Tennis wasn't an Olympic sport between 1924 and 1988 so none of Court, Emerson, Laver, BJK ever had a chance.

Graf was never much of a doubles player so she didn't come close in doubles.

Graf wasn't that bad in doubles, she won Wimbledon with Sabatini and made at least semis in the other 3 majors. Won a bronze in doubles(the doubles draw was so small in '88, that she only had to win one match to get a medal!)

 

[chjtennis]

I wouldn't go that far and say only the gold is important. However, The value of gold medal just cannot be compared with silver, and silver is also much more valuable than bronze. I think people are just being politically correct to count silver and bronze as the equal to gold. You may say silver and bronze are also valuable if you think about the amount of time and effort athletes put into winning those, but gold is definitely more valuable and it's funny how that's even debatable. I think in the old days, the order of Olympics medal race always was decided by number of gold first, and when that's the same, then they go to the number of silver, then the number of bronze. It was only since China was beginning to win more golds than US that we now count total medals won and decide the order, but I find it quite ridiculous. It's only a sport event and let's just be fair.

 

[anarosevoli]

Oh honey, sweetie no....

Olympic Gold is Olympic gold.

You want to downplay Usain Bolt in the Olympic relays? Michael Phelps in his relays? Serena and Venus in Doubles? Gold is gold.

Just be happy Djokovic finally got his Gold, don't try to discount others, that's bitter and embarrassing. Enjoy your moment.

If Phelps and Bolt had to give away some of their gold medals, which ones do think they would start with?

 

[MichaelNadal]

I actually completely agree.