Is an Olympic Doubles Gold Medal equal to an Olympic Singles Gold Medal

K

Kirijax

Hall of Fame
Just curious but some of the threads and discussions here have implied that a gold medal in doubles is equal to a gold medal in singles. This is obviously from the eternal, never-ending Federer-Nadal fans debates, but I was just curious to know what most of you think.

For me, obviously it is not, but maybe some of you have a different take on the matter.

So far, Rafael Nadal (singles), Roger Federer (doubles) and Andy Murray (singles) have gold medals from the Olympic Games. Novak Djokovic has a bronze in singles if I remember correctly.
 
Kirijax said:
Is an Olympic Doubles Gold Medal equal to an Olympic Singles Gold Medal
Click to expand...

Yes. A Gold Medal is a Gold medal. No difference.
No one counts separately Michael Felps' or Usain Bolt's gold medals in relays vs individual.

So they are the same.
 
Ofcourse it's equal in terms of value at the Olympics. Neither are a great tennis achievement though considering the lack of unique format and draw. Winning the doubles is arguably more impressive for an accomplished singles player seeing as it demonstrations the ability to play an under appreciated part of the game.
 
Interesting. Not only are they equal, but the doubles gold medal may be more impressive. I have to admit I have never ever thought of it in that way before. Not that I agree.
 
NatF said:
Ofcourse it's equal in terms of value at the Olympics. Neither are a great tennis achievement though considering the lack of unique format and draw. Winning the doubles is arguably more impressive for an accomplished singles player seeing as it demonstrations the ability to play an under appreciated part of the game.
Click to expand...

Haha this,well said.
 
I don't necessarily think doubles is more impressive - but if you think about a guy like Federer who has 9 HC slams and 7 Wimbledons would winning an extra title on either of those surfaces bellow a slam really add to his resume?
 
NatF said:
I don't necessarily think doubles is more impressive - but if you think about a guy like Federer who has 9 HC slams and 7 Wimbledons would winning an extra title on either of those surfaces bellow a slam really add to his resume?
Click to expand...

Since Fed has won a title on every surface and condition available to him, I don't think so.
 
Both are the same! They mean the same! But that doesn't mean you can use them to interchange events. When comparing 2 players in singles then you can't bring up the doubles medal. Likewise if you're comparing doubles you can't bring up singles. But personally I don't put too much value into the tennis Olympics.
 
Both equally prestigious and desirable. As a Federer fan I was very happy when he won gold.


HOWEVER, in terms of the GOAT debate the doubles gold is irrelevant. How much weight you put on the singles gold in the GOAT debate is debatable.
 
Chico said:
Yes. A Gold Medal is a Gold medal. No difference.
No one counts separately Michael Felps' or Usain Bolt's gold medals in relays vs individual.

So they are the same.
Click to expand...

No, doubles gold medal is less than half the value.

If Phelps or Bolt had only won relays and never individual, you would not be mentioning them at all.
 
Of course they are equal, they are both Olympic Gold Medals.

But the difference is one is an achievement in the singles category, whereas the other is an achievement in the doubles and falls under the category of "doubles titles".

Did a threat actually need to be made about this? Its ridiculously straightforward...
 
Doubles medal is worth more because you have to work twice as hard to compensate for your lame partner and you are facing doubles GOATs like Bryan Bros.

In singles you might be facing someone who can't hit overheads and is only at 1.0 version.
 
Last edited:
Kirijax said:
Just curious but some of the threads and discussions here have implied that a gold medal in doubles is equal to a gold medal in singles. This is obviously from the eternal, never-ending Federer-Nadal fans debates, but I was just curious to know what most of you think.

For me, obviously it is not, but maybe some of you have a different take on the matter.

So far, Rafael Nadal (singles), Roger Federer (doubles) and Andy Murray (singles) have gold medals from the Olympic Games. Novak Djokovic has a bronze in singles if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

For the desperate Federer fanatics, singles gold = doubles gold.
They can cling to that notion all they want, but the truth will not change....:twisted:
 
NatF said:
Ofcourse it's equal in terms of value at the Olympics. Neither are a great tennis achievement though considering the lack of unique format and draw.
Click to expand...

So, beating some of the the world's best players in a best of 5 format in the final of the Olympics cannot be considered a great tennis achievement???

Er...well, okay...if it makes you happy to think so!

:confused:
 
LazyNinja19 said:
Lol! Is the Doubles Slam equal to a Singles slam?
Click to expand...

No, because Slam >>>> Olympics. Each slam(and even the WTF) brings something unique to the table in terms of surface/format. With the Olympics, not so. Not winning one of the slams (or WTF) means you were not good enough on a given surface, but Olympics is not the ultimate test of your tennis skills in a given format/surface, the regular ITF/ATP tour already has enough of that.
For a sport like tennis, Olympics is only about winning a medal for your country.
 
Mainad said:
So, beating some of the the world's best players in a best of 5 format in the final of the Olympics cannot be considered a great tennis achievement???

Er...well, okay...if it makes you happy to think so!

:confused:
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that, great compared to slams. The old masters had virtually the same format. I don't consider those titles as anything special really. So why should I add extra value to the Olympics. I rate the Olympics higher than masters but bellow the YEC. That's good enough considering...
 
A singles medal is only 'worth' more if it's won by Nadal or Federer going by TT logic.

Great another thread to discredit Murray's OG win over Fed. Good one.
 
MichaelNadal said:
The trolls have flipped their wigs this year. It's the real reason for absurdities like "Doubles gold is equal to singles gold" Insecurity.
Click to expand...

If you think the Olympics is an impressive achievement is it not a sign of versatility for a top singles player to also win a huge doubles title?

And clearly they're equal with the Olympics both add 1 OG to the medals tally.
 
You can't compare the Olympics to slams and other ATP events because they are not the same. The goal at the Olympics is to win medals for your country and all gold medal have the same value. The difference in value is when you compare to different sports. Bolt's gold medal is much better than a gold in tennis.
 
syc23 said:
A singles medal is only 'worth' more if it's won by Nadal or Federer going by TT logic. It's ridiculous, but Great Britain is credited for the Olympic Gold medal, not the player. If you watched the match, people were cheering for the country's victory and not on Murray's behalf.

Great another thread to discredit Great Britain's OG win over Fed. Good one.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
We are really getting insecure if we are latching on to absurdities like rating an Olympic gold medal based on which event it was won for. If the two OG medals for singles and doubles were placed side by side, you couldn't tell them apart. Not the same for slams, though.The doubles champions are not handed a similar trophy as the singles champ.
 
sbengte said:
We are really getting insecure if we are latching on to absurdities like rating an Olympic gold medal based on which event it was won for. If the two OG medals for singles and doubles were placed side by side, you couldn't tell them apart. Not the same for slams, though.The doubles champions are not handed a similar trophy as the singles champ.
Click to expand...

And the doubles paycheck at majors is a fraction of singles, while at olympics everything is the same ..

same podium, same medal, everything..

it is like saying 'Nadal never won Washington DC'.

It is worth 750 points. No sh*t more.
 
tennisaddict said:
And the doubles paycheck at majors is a fraction of singles, while at olympics everything is the same ..

same podium, same medal, everything..

it is like saying 'Nadal never won Washington DC'.

It is worth 750 points. No sh*t more.
Click to expand...

Don't tell the insecure fans that, let them revel in their la la land where OG is a major accomplishment only if it is won in singles. LOL.
 
Morj said:
Of course they are equal, they are both Olympic Gold Medals.

But the difference is one is an achievement in the singles category, whereas the other is an achievement in the doubles and falls under the category of "doubles titles".

Did a threat actually need to be made about this? Its ridiculously straightforward...
Click to expand...

Nothing is straightforward on this board. We look under the surface with a microscope here and offer unparalleled insights which you will not find anywhere else.
 
The intellectual gymnastics of some of the Feddies on this subject is quite something to behold.

Yep - all gold medals look alike. But winning an ODG has zero bearing on a singles player's CV - in much the same way as winning any doubles title has zero bearing on a singles player's CV.

So does Roger's ODG enhance his record as a singles player? No. Would an OSG enhance his record as a singles player? Yes. So are ODGs and OSGs worth the same from the context of enhancing a singles player's career record? No.

The really sad thing is that OSG clearly meant a lot to Roger - but his more insecure fans ignore this in order to denigrate the 1 major bauble to elude him as a singles player in the mistaken belief that it somehow detracts from his legacy.

Roger is GOAT kiddies (at least for now) you don't need to denigrate OSG in order to reinforce this.
 
batz said:
The intellectual gymnastics of some of the Feddies on this subject is quite something to behold.

Yep - all gold medals look alike. But winning an ODG has zero bearing on a singles player's CV - in much the same way as winning any doubles title has zero bearing on a singles player's CV.

So does Roger's ODG enhance his record as a singles player? No. Would an OSG enhance his record as a singles player? Yes. So are ODGs and OSGs worth the same from the context of enhancing a singles player's career record? No.

The really sad thing is that OSG clearly meant a lot to Roger - but his more insecure fans ignore this in order to denigrate the 1 major bauble to elude him as a singles player in the mistaken belief that it somehow detracts from his legacy.

Roger is GOAT kiddies (at least for now) you don't need to denigrate OSG in order to reinforce this.
Click to expand...

Very well said!
OSG matters a lot to Federer. That's why he has participated in as many as 4 Olympics (going for 5th at Rio)! More attempts than any other tennis player. But still the OSG eludes him!
 
batz said:
Yep - all gold medals look alike. But winning an ODG has zero bearing on a singles player's CV - in much the same way as winning any doubles title has zero bearing on a singles player's CV.
Click to expand...

Let us flip the question and ask , do you consider not winning a singles Olympic gold a hole in a singles player's resume ?


batz said:
you don't need to denigrate OSG in order to reinforce this.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the OG won for doubles that is being denigrated in the context of this thread, by saying it is any lesser than a singles gold.
It is great that Murray won the gold for Great Britain, but his 2 slam victories are far far bigger than any medal.
 
Last edited:
A simple way to answer this question:

Who is considered a better player: Nadal or Bryans?

Who is paid more prize money in tournaments?

Who gets more sponsor money?

Who packs more crowds?
 
LazyNinja19 said:
Very well said!
OSG matters a lot to Federer. That's why he has participated in as many as 4 Olympics (going for 5th at Rio)! More attempts than any other tennis player. But still the OSG eludes him!
Click to expand...

Federer has gone on record ( before the 2012 Olympics was held) saying that given a choice he'd take one more Wimbledon because he already has an Olympics gold medal from Beijing.
 
sbengte said:
Actually, it is the OG won for doubles that is being denigrated in the context of this thread, by saying it is any lesser than a singles gold.
Click to expand...

What's worse is using Olympics results against the past great players who didn't have a chance to play. It's nice to be a part of history, but that shouldn't hold against the past players.
 
sbengte said:
Federer has gone on record ( before the 2012 Olympics was held) saying that given a choice he'd take one more Wimbledon because he already has an Olympics gold medal from Beijing.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing a Slam with an OSG! Am i?

I just said, that Fed has attmepted at the OSG as many as 4 times, and a possibility of 5th looms. So i don't buy the "Fed doesnt care for OG" or "OG is not worth it" crap from Fed fans!
All of the tennis' major commentators & analysts consider OSG, a very important title, distinct from the Slams!

And yes, winning an Olympic Doubles Gold is an incredible achievement. And kudos to Fed & Wawrinka!
But in singles career wise, it doesn't stand much value!
 
Last edited:
sbengte said:
Let us flip the question and ask , do you consider not winning a singles Olympic gold a hole in a singles player's resume ?




Actually, it is the OG won for doubles that is being denigrated in the context of this thread, by saying it is any lesser than a singles gold.
Click to expand...

No. Hence saying that Roger is the GOAT in my post - did you miss that or just choose to ignore it?

It is 'lesser' than a singles gold in the context of a singles player's career achievements. The fact that Roger has won the ODG has no bearing on his achievements as a singles player.


An Olympic Gold is an Olympic gold and a slam title is a slam title - but Jamie Murray's Wimbledon title is < than Andy's.

No doubles titles in tennis is equivalent to the singles title at the same event. This is a truism throughout every level of the sport. It doesn't change just because Roger hasn't won OSG.
 
Last edited:
Olympic singles gold has nothing unique about it that would place it anywhere close to the slams. It's 5 best of 3 matches and a best of 5 final. So I don't see it as a major title anymore than I see Miami as a major. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value, but I feel the value is more sentimental than anything else.
 
Not having OSG is not a hole in one's resume, its not really an essential tournament to win.

However, when comparing two players, then if one has an OSG then thats bonus points to them for sure. Career Golden Slam > Career Slam.

Fed fans try to act like the OSG doesn't even count, or even worse, that somehow having a Doubles Gold should count when comparing singles achievements.
 
Having coached a player who has won a Paralympic medal in doubles I can say that any medal won at an Olympic/Paralympic games is an incredible achievement and will be one of the proudest moments in any athletes career.
 
Ash_Smith said:
Having coached a player who has won a Paralympic medal in doubles I can say that any medal won at an Olympic/Paralympic games is an incredible achievement and will be one of the proudest moments in any athletes career.
Click to expand...

Quoted for the Gospel-like quality of your post.

Also, that is very cool that you've coached a medalist!
 
In the eyes of the Olympics, obviously all gold medals are the same, whether you were a benchwarmer on the basketball team or the marathon winner.

However, in the world of tennis, it's pretty ridiculous to consider the Singles Gold and Doubles Gold equivalent when judging the accomplishments of a SINGLES tennis player. There may be dispute about how prestigious the Olympics tennis titles are in the first place. But there really isn't any question at all that the Singles title is the more coveted and more prestigious of the two.

To suggest otherwise is revisionist history.
 
A team medal counts the same for the medal table (but only one for the whole team), so in that respect it's the same, but for most people all medals are not equal.

Winning a medal in the relay is never as impressive as winning a solo gold, but winning gold in the 4 x 100m is more impressive than being one of the many rowing teams to win gold.

In tennis, one of the reasons a doubles gold isn't rated as high for an individual is because you can't be sure of getting the best pairs. Players are restricted to playing with a compatriot, so it is a test of doubles ability of each country. With singles, you don't have that restriction, so singles, and all solo events are more of an achievement for an individual. Team events are more about the achievements of a country.

All Olympic medals are very impressive, and represent much more than being the very best on that given day. Bronze medals have a lot of value too, and some countries like to list the medal table by total medals before using number of gold and silver to differentiate.

A medal in singles or doubles should count towards their overall achievements, but if you are comparing singles careers, then you have to look at achievements in singles first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Wimbledon Doubles Title VS Olympic Doubles Gold Medal
Replies
26
Views
3K
hoodjem
hoodjem
TennisCanada1
Olympic Gold / GS Combo
Replies
19
Views
1K
jrs
J
Sorana fan
Is an olympic gold medal more prestigious than wtf?
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
22K
Rovesciarete
Rovesciarete
Sport
  • Poll Poll
Are WTF and Olympic Gold in singles equallly relevant?
2
Replies
90
Views
4K
Deleted member 805385
D
harrpau7
  • Poll Poll
Olympic Gold, where does it rank?
Replies
24
Views
2K
caulcano
C
Back
Top