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

  • Thread starter Deleted member 756486
  • Start date
Kyrigos doesn't cry at slams, WTF, masters he only cries for laver cup. It is the crown jewel of tennis, the tournament everyone wants. Of course players want to play laver but they are not invited poor guys
So Kyrgios of all players? He is a mental wreck and a drama queen.
Tell me more when Rafa cries losing Laver, then we can talk.
Rafa isn;t the benchmark for tennis lol but lets say he was you better believe hed cry like a baby if he won the WTF or did the full 9 masters set
If you think Laver cup means more for all tennis players than the Olympics you are... Idk... trying to quarrel?
Im not taking you seriously and you are going on my ignore list!
You are a troll!
In which case you've contradicted yourself as Masters are not worthless.
A Masters is worth 1,000 points. The Olympics are worth 0. I'm being generous since the Olympics used to offer points. They have almost the same format, so if I had my way, they'd be similar to a Masters event.
1) Slam
2) Olympics
3) WTF
4) Masters

If the ATP continue to not hand out points for the Olympics and players sit it out, like last time, because they don't think they can win it and don't see any reason to turn up then it will really lose prestige once the current top guys, who have genuinely cared about it (see Novak's tears), finish playing.

However, the number of points on offer for the Olympics was right at 750 due to how the strength of the field shaped up due to limited representation from strong tennis countries.
This stupid question again?
The only value that Olympics have is coming from words and perception. Which in the end is mostly subjective. Olympics were great in the past when there wasnt other events in which players could match up against each other. Now they are mostly nostalgia and each year less and less people watch them.
There are still people who are proud to play for their country but in reality how is Djokovic representing Serbia in a different way when he plays on the Tour or the Olympics?! Zero difference.
The only edition which featured most top players was London. This one I could rate higher.
Masters give you 1000 points for a year which grants you easier draws, byes and in the end means a lot of money. Players play for cash and to provide their family, this comes first over fame and legacy.
Is Monica Puig a big star or Nicolas Massu?


I have a pretty strong opinion about the Olympics and tennis. Sorry, but they just do not agree. Players can cry and say whatever they want but at the end it's almost irrelevant. Small draw, bo3 ... 4 years apart. DC is a place to represent your country but even DC has been losing it's appeal for a long time now. Nah. I see it an a glorifying exo. Of course, that's just my opinion and I do respect other people who think it's very important but I just can't see it.


Hall of Fame

With that being said, a trophy collection has a play in this. For example, I would bet that Djoker and Federer would prefer an Olympic gold medal over yet another WTF title. Now granted, sweeping all 5 matches in the WTF pays 2.7 million dollars, which is more than double of what a Master's pays and almost as much as a slam title pays. But I think that Djoker and Federer would love a gold medal at this stage.

I think that I would personally want the Gold medal if I had Djoker's and Federer's cash and trophy collection. On the flip side, I would want a WTF if I were Nadal. That elusive title, along with up to 2.7 million dollars in prize money wouldn't be too shabby in that case.
I think they're above the WTF considering you can't lose a match in the Olympics and win Gold.

But I look at Indian Wells above the WTF and Olympics given the participation and needing 6 rounds for seeded players (I don't even think an unseeded has won an IW title).

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.
As an example, during the last Olympics, 2016, 7 of the top 50 men's players were from Spain and 9 were from France but only 4 from each country could participate. The Olympic rule, which limits the number of players from each county, significantly weakens the quality of the field and thus, in my opinion, reduces the value of a Tennis Olympic gold to below WTF. That said, it is still a tremendous achievement which two of the greatest players of all time (Federer and Djokovic) have so far failed to accomplish!