How important are the Olympics compared to grand slams, WTF, M1000,

  • Thread starter Deleted member 756486
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
#1
How would you rank the Olympics in terms of importance in tennis?
For me it would be:
1. Grand Slam
2. Olympics
3. WTF
4. M1000
 
#5
The Olympics is the grandest stage in sport, the most exalted and time-honored event bar none.

It also comes along only every four years, which makes it actually special and prized, unlike the almost weekly slams, which are about as valuable as a German mark in the Weimar Republic of 1923.

So if someone were to come along and defend an Olympic Singles Gold, I would have to grudgingly accept them as goat, but I doubt that happens any time soon.
 
#6
The Olympics is the grandest stage in sport, the most exalted event bar none.

It also comes along only every four years, which makes them actually special and prized, unlike the almost weekly slams, which are about as valuable as a German mark in the Weimar Republic of 1923.

So if someone were to come along and defend an Olympic Singles Gold, I would have to grudgingly accept them as goat, but I doubt that happens any time soon.
Oh, it's damn true.
 
#8
The Olympics is the grandest stage in sport, the most exalted and time-honored event bar none.

It also comes along only every four years, which makes them actually special and prized, unlike the almost weekly slams, which are about as valuable as a German mark in the Weimar Republic of 1923.

So if someone were to come along and defend an Olympic Singles Gold, I would have to grudgingly accept them as goat, but I doubt that happens any time soon.
Since 92:

Rosset
Agassi
Y-man
Massu
Nadal
Murray x 2

Meh.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#11
For me:

1. Slams
2. WTF
3. Olympics
4. Masters

My reasoning:

Slams are the undisputed leading events in tennis. The WTF guarantees the participation (barring injury) of the top 8 players of the season. The Olympics is the only event outside the Slams and Davis Cup where the final is still played as best of 5 sets and it undoubtedly carries more emotional resonance for the players than any other tennis event with the possible exception of the Slams.
 
#13
Since 92:

Rosset
Agassi
Y-man
Nadal
Murray x 2

Meh.
Reads more or less like the Rushmore of tennis – a very exclusive club indeed.

If I were to list the slam champs in that time frame, it'd sound more like the "VIP list" of some trashy club that would let in just about any hairy Swiss fella as long as the miniskirt is short enough.
 
Last edited:
#14
Olympic gold has always had some weight to it, but I notice that people started to give a much more massive **** about it once Nadal won it, most notably because Fed hasn't. This also happened to preclude a genuine rise in interest in Olympic Gold, perhaps bolstered by the 2012 edition, whereby it was held at the most prestigious tennis venue in the world. The top guys seem to relish it now, perhaps because they've won pretty much everything else.
 
#15
The Olympics exist in a different universe IMO, so I can't really make a comparison.

An Olympic gold medal holds inherent prestige because it's...well, the Olympics. Who wouldn't want an Olympic medal? It's a dream come true for any athlete.

But the Olympics simply don't mesh well w/ the tennis world, at least when used as any kind of metric. They're held once every four years, so a player is lucky to catch one during his/her peak; they're also lucky to participate in more than one or two over the course of their career.

I simply find it difficult to rank the Olympics alongside other tournaments that occur frequently and actually award ATP points.

But hey, at least Murray fans can say that he's twice as good at winning Olympic singles gold than Nadal (I just wouldn't use it as proof that he's even half the player Nadal is).
 
#20
Reads more or less like the Rushmore of tennis


Mt. Rushmore of tennis reads kinda like Tilden, Gonzalez, Federer, Laver

Guys like Rosset, Murray, Kafelnikov, Massu, Agassi etc aren't even close to being in the discussion of greatest 4.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
#23
For me:

1. Slams
2. WTF
3. Olympics
4. Masters

My reasoning:

Slams are the undisputed leading events in tennis. The WTF guarantees the participation (barring injury) of the top 8 players of the season. The Olympics is the only event outside the Slams and Davis Cup where the final is still played as best of 5 sets and it undoubtedly carries more emotional resonance for the players than any other tennis event with the possible exception of the Slams.
Good reasoning and i see your point.
 
#24
Anyone ranking the Olympics above WTF is pushing an agenda. In many other sports the equivalent of the WTF is THE definitive event of the year - it's akin to a "World Championship" in athletics etc. Also, since reintroduction it has only been in the sport a comparatively short amount of time (just over half the time that we've had a WTF - 1970 vs 1988).

Remember too that the Olympics is not an open based on ranking - it's a restrictive event that only allows a maximum of 4 players for singles from each country - meaning in some cases where you have a dominant country you can have players who are relatively highly-ranked who are simply ineligible to play. The WTF simply has a ranking cut-off - the best of the best can play, it doesn't matter where you're from.

Slams are the pinnacle of our sport, no question. That said - I'd argue the WTF deserves more respect than it receives - it is the best playing the best. You can run a whole year where some players in the top 10 never face others, and then - if you want to win the WTF you need to play at least 4 or usually 5 of the top 8 (and beat at least 4 of them!) - great to see.
 
#28
Olympic gold is the pinnacle of athletic achievement but it's really a poor fit for how tennis works, they keep changing if there are points, what the entry requirements are, etc. On one hand it can be seen as just below the slams, otoh maybe it's more like a fancier Davis Cup.

On balance I guess the same as WTF?
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
#30
Meaningless, they werent played for 20 years and now award no prize money or pts.

Its below davis cup, because davis cup was always played

Its on par with Kooyong or other exo's.
 
#34
1. Slams. More specifically, Wimbledon and the US Open. The French and Aussie are cute, and count toward your GOAT resume, but no sensible person puts them on a level with the Big Two.

2. Everything else. The others do not matter at all, and are roughly equivalent in their meaninglessness.
 
#35
I consider there to be five major tournaments in a calendar year on the ATP Tour. Here they are in order of prestige in my book:
1. Wimbledon
2. Australian open
3. US Open
4. French Open
5. Year End Championships
 
#37
Anyone ranking the Olympics above WTF is pushing an agenda. In many other sports the equivalent of the WTF is THE definitive event of the year - it's akin to a "World Championship" in athletics etc. Also, since reintroduction it has only been in the sport a comparatively short amount of time (just over half the time that we've had a WTF - 1970 vs 1988).

Remember too that the Olympics is not an open based on ranking - it's a restrictive event that only allows a maximum of 4 players for singles from each country - meaning in some cases where you have a dominant country you can have players who are relatively highly-ranked who are simply ineligible to play. The WTF simply has a ranking cut-off - the best of the best can play, it doesn't matter where you're from.

Slams are the pinnacle of our sport, no question. That said - I'd argue the WTF deserves more respect than it receives - it is the best playing the best. You can run a whole year where some players in the top 10 never face others, and then - if you want to win the WTF you need to play at least 4 or usually 5 of the top 8 (and beat at least 4 of them!) - great to see.
that's like all Olympic sports..tennis is no different, athletics have best 2 I think in each country go to Olympic games.

cycling rules were changed recently because they didn't want finals clogged up with 3 gb cyclists again, so only 2 from each country in each event can be in Olympics..

swimming has the same ..only top2 or 3 from each country for each event as long as within a minimum olymic qualifying time..etc..

i'd have the wtf above og though.
 

JMR

Professional
#38
Gold medal has way more historical significance behind it
Certainly not in tennis. I can understand if someone suggests that Nic Massú's gold medals have special emotional resonance for himself and for the people of Chile because icons like Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens also won gold medals. But it would be silly to suggest that this athletic history in other sports means that Massú has accomplished an all-time great deed in tennis.
 
#42
The Olympics is the grandest stage in sport, the most exalted and time-honored event bar none.

It also comes along only every four years, which makes it actually special and prized, unlike the almost weekly slams, which are about as valuable as a German mark in the Weimar Republic of 1923.

So if someone were to come along and defend an Olympic Singles Gold, I would have to grudgingly accept them as goat, but I doubt that happens any time soon.
Wait, you mean Massu did not end the GOAT debate when he won singles and doubles gold in whatever year ?

MuryGOAT.
 

Raindogs

Hall of Fame
#44
The Olympics are dead last.

Nothing that occurs only every 4 years should be seen as anything but a gimmicky diversion from winning the big events on the legitimate tour.

It's the polar opposite of course for sports like track & field and wrestling where at the Olympics IS the pinnicle achievement in an athlete's career; and we as tennis fans in our deepest hearts know that this just does not hold true for a grinding annually scheduled tour sport such as our great sport of tennis.
 
#45
The Olympic Gold in singles is equally relevant as the ATP Finals. A XXI century player who wants to be GOAT, has a big hole in his resume without the OG in singles.

The ATP strategically ignores the Olympics because it is not part of the ATP circuit. But the ATP is not the only men's professional association of tennis. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) operates both Grand Slams and Olympics.

Category of tournaments:

Grand Slams (Tier A)

Olympic Gold in singles/ATP finals (Tier B)

Masters 1000 (Tier C)

Masters 500 (Tier D)

ATP 250 (Tier E)


If you ask a Federer or Djokovic fan they will tell you that the ATP Finals are more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But are they being objective?

It is not a secret that the ATP Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let us compare these two prestigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: The ATP Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the draw extremely though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy with football/soccer: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, the OG in singles are even more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Correlation between ATP points and prestige of a tournament: the ATP gives 0 ATP points to the Olympic Gold winner. Murray, the last winner, won 0 ATP points. But, for example, Federer has 25 ATP 250 titles and 0 Olympic Gold in singles, which illustrates that the OG in singles is far more difficult to achieve than any ATP 250. Most people will agree that the Olympics represent a more prestigious tournament than any ATP 250 title. Subsequently, there is not always a correlation between ATP points and the prestige of a tournament.

3) Some non-ATG player won the Olympic Gold: Fed fans sometimes suggest that because X player (who is not an all-time great) won the Olympic Gold, the Olympic Gold lacks merit. According to that logic, the ATP Finals are not meritorious, since Álex Corretja won it 1998.

4) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.

Source:

http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html

http://www.tennisconfidential.com/how-important-is-olympic-gold-medal.html

An Olympic Gold Medal is not as relevant as a GS, but in the current era it is at least equally relevant as the World Tour Final, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give the players any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. Players play both for their individual resume and their country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of difficulty. In fact, it is even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. Players can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means they can try it 15 or 16 times in their career. But players only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles only 3 or 4 times in their career. For example, Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone start with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. A great exaple of its importance can be appreciated in how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beat him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, both trophies are equally relevant. The ATP Finals are historically very relevant. ATP finals are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremely difficult trophy to achieve, even more than the ATP finals, because of the limited number of editions. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

There is no objective reason to consider the ATP finals more relevant than the OG in singles, especially when the first one is played every year and the second one every four years, making it even more difficult to achieve.
 
#46
The Olympic Gold in singles is equally relevant as the ATP Finals. A XXI century player who wants to be GOAT, has a giant hole in his resume without the OG in singles.

The ATP strategically ignores the Olympics because it is not part of the ATP circuit. But the ATP is not the only men's professional association of tennis. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) operates both Grand Slams and Olympics.

Category of tournaments:

Grand Slams (Tier A)

Olympic Gold in singles/ATP finals (Tier B)

Masters 1000 (Tier C)

Masters 500 (Tier D)

ATP 250 (Tier E)


If you ask a Federer or Djokovic fan they will tell you that the ATP Finals are more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But are they being objective?

It is not a secret that the ATP Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let us compare these two prestigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: The ATP Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the draw extremely though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy with football/soccer: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, the OG in singles are even more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Correlation between ATP points and prestige of a tournament: the ATP gives 0 ATP points to the Olympic Gold winner. Murray, the last winner, won 0 ATP points. But, for example, Federer has 25 ATP 250 titles and 0 Olympic Gold in singles, which illustrates that the OG in singles is far more difficult to achieve than any ATP 250. Most people will agree that the Olympics represent a more prestigious tournament than any ATP 250 title. Subsequently, there is not always a correlation between ATP points and the prestige of a tournament.

3) Some non-ATG player won the Olympic Gold: Fed fans sometimes suggest that because X player (who is not an all-time great) won the Olympic Gold, the Olympic Gold lacks merit. According to that logic, the ATP Finals are not meritorious, since Álex Corretja won it 1998.

4) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.

Source:


http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html

http://www.tennisconfidential.com/how-important-is-olympic-gold-medal.html

An Olympic Gold Medal is not as relevant as a GS, but in the current era it is at least equally relevant as the World Tour Final, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give the players any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. Players play both for their individual resume and their country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of difficulty. In fact, it is even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. Players can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means they can try it 15 or 16 times in their career. But players only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles only 3 or 4 times in their career. For example, Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone start with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. A great exaple of its importance can be appreciated in how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beat him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, both trophies are equally relevant. The ATP Finals are historically very relevant. ATP finals are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremely difficult trophy to achieve, even more than the ATP finals, because of the limited number of editions. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

There is no objective reason to consider the ATP finals more relevant than the OG in singles, especially when the first one is played every year and the second one every four years, making it even more difficult to achieve.
When you see players reaction winning a gold medal or losing one... It can seem it means sometimes even more than a slam. Never seen Novak being so sad losing a final before.
 
#47
In tennis, it is literally worthless. Players may value it because they’re playing for their country along with their compatriots, but in the grand scheme of things in tennis, it’s about the same value as maybe a Masters.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#49
In tennis, it is literally worthless. Players may value it because they’re playing for their country along with their compatriots, but in the grand scheme of things in tennis, it’s about the same value as maybe a Masters.
In which case you've contradicted yourself as Masters are not worthless.
 
Top