Is an olympic gold medal more prestigious than wtf?

Sorana fan

Sorana fan

Banned
So...let's see what the players think:

NADAL
Nadal: Olympics bigger than Grand Slams
"The Olympic Games is very special for many reasons and in my opinion the biggest one because you are representing your country"
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/nadal-olympics-bigger-grand-slams-125157478.html

DJOKOVIC:
Djokovic: "Winning gold brings immortality"
Interviewer: You look like you are loving the whole Olympic experience?
Djokovic: “I am and I have seen the majority of the athletes and they cannot remove the smile from their faces. It is an excitement that is like no other. It is the most recognisable event in the history of sport. In the past, when you won the Olympic Games you were considered immortal and you got eternal glory – I don’t think it has changed much really because that is how much it means to the world of sport and to the athletes“
http://www.thetennisspace.com/djokovic-exclusive-winning-gold-brings-immortality/

FEDERER
"This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to be playing at Wimbledon at the Olympic Games. It's just a really big deal for us to be living that Olympic spirit, right there, at the most incredible arena we have in tennis.
"It's a big goal for me, there's no doubt about it. This is my fourth time. I don't think there's another player in singles who has played four in this era so I am very happy that I'm able to do this.
"I'm just super excited and can't wait until it comes around."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1251827-roger-federer-what-does-olympic-gold-mean-for-r-fed

MURRAY (months before winning medal)
"I would say that winning an Olympic gold is bigger than winning a Grand Slam," Murray said, when asked what the lasting impact would be of winning either. "Everybody knows what an Olympic gold is. Everybody on the street knows about that anywhere you go. I think most people know what a Grand Slam is, but I don't think everybody does. The Olympics is bigger than tennis, bigger than the Slams for sure. It's a huge, huge competition, the biggest sporting competition in the world."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/s...lympic-gold-bigger-than-a-major-28736461.html

AGASSI
Andre Agassi: Olympic tennis gold matters more than any Grand Slam.
For Andre Agassi, if he could have only "one trophy in the trophy case, between all the Grand Slams and the [Olympic] gold medal", he says that he would "lean towards winning the gold medal."
Andre Agassi won the Atlanta 1996 Olympics tennis gold medal, and he says that it was so special because "it represents so much more than just tennis."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...is-gold-matters-more-than-any-Grand-Slam.html
 
Last edited:
Personally, I would choose a WTF over a singles gold. Much more prestige in beating up to 5 of the 8 best tennis players in the world at WTF than beating maybe 3 en route to the gold....... But thats just my two cents.....
 
FedExpress17 said:
Personally, I would choose a WTF over a singles gold. Much more prestige in beating up to 5 of the 8 best tennis players in the world at WTF than beating maybe 3 en route to the gold....... But thats just my two cents.....
Click to expand...

I guess your Fed would do a different choice ;)
 
FedExpress17 said:
Personally, I would choose a WTF over a singles gold. Much more prestige in beating up to 5 of the 8 best tennis players in the world at WTF than beating maybe 3 en route to the gold....... But thats just my two cents.....
Click to expand...

Dont think you would be saying that if Fed had won an OG and no WTF
 
The good thing about having an extensive collection of the most exhilarating posts, made from the members of the ************* is, that I can use them, to steer the discussion with other members of that exquisite group.

So, let us see, what the great NSK thought about the OG:

“I never said the Gold Medal was more valuable than 6 WTFs. I said the Gold Medal is valuable now because Nadal has it. If Nadal didn't have it, it wouldn't be such a big deal.”
Click to expand...
 
Minefield subject. The ATP says no. Olympics is a bigger event overall of course but in terms of tennis records, it's never had that much weight. Maybe because it wasn't an Olympic sport for a very long time (about 60 years from 1928 to 1988) and when it became an Olympic sport, it got won by secondary players like Massu, Rosset. It could change though if top players start investing a lot in it. I think that's what's happening now but it may take a little time and ATP will have to officially back up its importance (by granting more points and prestige, it currently counts as a 500, same as DC).
Still being a gold medalist (or a medalist at all) is something unique that no other record can replace.
 
Last edited:
All athletes would like a gold medal, it doesn't matter if in singles or doubles for tennis.
But on the resume a WTF is much more impressive.
 
Like i've said before, winning for your nation is 10 times the honour of winning for yourself.
Olympics gold medal is a no-brainer for me.
 
veroniquem said:
Minefield subject. The ATP says no. Olympics is a bigger event overall of course but in terms of tennis records, it's never had that much weight. Maybe because it wasn't an Olympic sport for a very long time (about 60 years from 1928 to 1988) and when it became an Olympic sport, it got won by secondary players like Massu, Rosset. It could change though if top players start investing a lot in it. I think that's what's happening now but it may take a little time and ATP will have to officially back up its importance (by granting more points and prestige, it currently counts as a 500, same as DC).
Still being a gold medalist (or a medalist at all) is something unique that no other record can replace.
Click to expand...

Dont agree. If everything is determined by points, then Wimbledon is as prestigious as AO. Then Shanghai or Bercy are as prestigious as other M1000.
Then winning two M1000 is as prestigious as a GS

ATP doesnt write the Holy Bible and a tournament is as prestigious as the players decide.
 
I said points AND prestige. Both. It's not just the amount of points, it's the fact Olympics is tallied as a 500, not a 1000. Also currently I don't see any rational argument to claim that all 1000 are not equal (same for slams). It's not because Shanghai is newer that it's worth less for instance. Finally, ATP and ITF DO represent the players and establish the hierarchy in terms of events, rankings and organization in general in the form of rules, incentives, penalties and rewards. So they do determine what's important or what's not. Not individual players.
 
veroniquem said:
it currently counts as a 500, same as DC).
Click to expand...

The ATP currently awards 750 ranking points for an Olympic gold medal ie. in between a Masters and a 500 event. IMO that's far too low and it's high time they at least gave it the equivalent of Masters status or maybe higher given that the final is played in best of 5 sets.
 
veroniquem said:
Minefield subject. The ATP says no.
Click to expand...
The Olympics is bigger than the ATP. The points allocated are blatantly not representative of what any of the medals are worth to the players, but in many ways, that makes them even more special. You know the players are playing for the glory alone.

They were all prepared to miss/tank the Canada Masters last Summer to get a medal, despite the points differential.

The main thing that makes an Olympics gold bigger than WTF is that almost everyone has heard of the Olympics and will rate an Olympic medal whether or not tennis is a sport they've given much attention to. No-one really cares about the WTFs beyond the more serious tennis fans.

WTFs are clearly important and a win there is on the to do list of all top players, and a great boost for points and prize money in time for Christmas! But you can bet your grandparents would prefer to see you with that Olympic gold! :lol:
 
Mainad said:
The ATP currently awards 750 ranking points for an Olympic gold medal ie. in between a Masters and a 500 event. IMO that's far too low and it's high time they at least gave it the equivalent of Masters status or maybe higher given that the final is played in best of 5 sets.
Click to expand...
I know it gives more points. I'm just saying it's tallied as a 500. I agree it should be at least the equivalent of a master if not more. I think it may happen in the future. What's also awkward about it is that it only happens every 4 years, a very special situation in the world of tennis. Tricky to handle because those are points one cannot defend unless suggesting keeping the points for a whole 4 years but that's problematic too.
 
Sorana fan said:
Dont agree. If everything is determined by points, then Wimbledon is as prestigious as AO. Then Shanghai or Bercy are as prestigious as other M1000.
Then winning two M1000 is as prestigious as a GS

ATP doesnt write the Holy Bible and a tournament is as prestigious as the players decide.
Click to expand...

"It's impossible to describe. I'm just very happy. It's unbelievable for me to have the title here at Wimbledon,"

"It's a dream. Always, as a kid, I dreamed of playing here.
Click to expand...


Guess who said that.
 
*Sparkle* said:
The Olympics is bigger than the ATP. The points allocated are blatantly not representative of what any of the medals are worth to the players, but in many ways, that makes them even more special. You know the players are playing for the glory alone.

They were all prepared to miss/tank the Canada Masters last Summer to get a medal, despite the points differential.

The main thing that makes an Olympics gold bigger than WTF is that almost everyone has heard of the Olympics and will rate an Olympic medal whether or not tennis is a sport they've given much attention to. No-one really cares about the WTFs beyond the more serious tennis fans.

WTFs are clearly important and a win there is on the to do list of all top players, and a great boost for points and prize money in time for Christmas! But you can bet your grandparents would prefer to see you with that Olympic gold! :lol:
Click to expand...
Ah sure for non tennis specialists, WTF is probably unheard of! But OTOH non tennis specialists (like our grandmas :)) would certainly not obsess about tennis records like we do!
 
veroniquem said:
I said points AND prestige. Both. It's not just the amount of points, it's the fact Olympics is tallied as a 500, not a 1000. Also currently I don't see any rational argument to claim that all 1000 are not equal (same for slams). It's not because Shanghai is newer that it's worth less for instance. Finally, ATP and ITF DO represent the players and establish the hierarchy in terms of events, rankings and organization in general in the form of rules, incentives, penalties and rewards. So they do determine what's important or what's not. Not individual players.
Click to expand...

ATP the same as the rest of other authorities in different fields and scopes always have trailed behind.

Btw I think no many people consider Wimbledon is as prestigious as AO
 
Sorana fan said:
ATP the same as the rest of other authorities in different fields and scopes always have trailed behind.

Btw I think no many people consider Wimbledon is as prestigious as AO
Click to expand...
That was true in the past (when many top players didn't even play AO). I don't think it's true at all anymore. And I don't see any top player snobbing any of the slams or giving it less effort. Of course, there is still sentimental value but that's obviously personal and not quantifiable in terms of "worth".
I don't know if ATP and ITF "trail behind" but they're the ones making all the decisions. And thankfully they are because decisions have to be centralized somehow. The day when any player can decide a 250 is the most important event just because they won it is the day when tennis as a pro/organized sport will collapse.
 
Last edited:
It is not more prestigious, no. The ATP does not think so. Look at their point allocation. Also, the WTF has more history in the tennis world. Up until 2000, the Olympics were not considered as that important and then I think they gained some more prestige because the very popular Dementieva won and it was seen as some kind of validation for her career. If I am correct, Pete Sampras did not even play them in '96.
I, personally, think the Olympics exist outside of tennis. I think they are a really cool thing to win and very prestigious in the world of sport, but in tennis, specifically, I think they are not as prestigious as the WTF.
 
Olympic gold is much more impressive to most people in the world, and I would definitely take the gold over WTF.

I think in terms of hardcore tennis fans, it is understandable that some people weight the WTF as much as a gold. The WTF is the best against the best. It may not be as cool to win a WTF, but it may be harder to achieve.
 
GoaLaSSo said:
Olympic gold is much more impressive to most people in the world, and I would definitely take the gold over WTF.

I think in terms of hardcore tennis fans, it is understandable that some people weight the WTF as much as a gold. The WTF is the best against the best. It may not be as cool to win a WTF, but it may be harder to achieve.
Click to expand...
Even if I don't know about choosing between the two, I agree with most of this post. Maybe we are pitting the difficulty of beating the very best (WTF) vs. the actual fame and recognition of the common world (Olympic Gold).
 
Sorana fan said:
Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon...he didnt even reach any other GS final.
That shows how much important is Wimbledon?
Click to expand...
Richard Krajicek fits rather well in the category of players who've won just 1 slam. I don't think any isolated title defines your place in the sport. It's your career as a whole and how many big events you've won that tells the story.
 
GoaLaSSo said:
I think in terms of hardcore tennis fans, it is understandable that some people weight the WTF as much as a gold. The WTF is the best against the best. It may not be as cool to win a WTF, but it may be harder to achieve.
Click to expand...

But, isn't the whole idea of the discussion to establish which is more prestigious to actually estimate which is harder to achieve (as the reputation is actually the representation of the same thing historically)?

I don't understand the "cool" thing at all.

GoaLaSSo said:
Olympic gold is much more impressive to most people in the world, and I would definitely take the gold over WTF.
Click to expand...

It is like asking someone on the street to make an estimation, what is the value of the "Un dimanche après-midi à l'Île de la Grande Jatte".
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Actually, I am calling only the extremely biased, unable to be reasonable fans with the group name, that they have chosen for themselves (i.e. ************* apparently is a community, where you can actually exchange thoughts with all those people).

There are plenty of reasonable Nadal fans (on this forum as well) that I will never put in that group.

So, my point and the reference are absolutely spot on.
Click to expand...

Ok, then because I dont consider myself unable to be reasonable, I will just think your previous post is worthless for the discussion. The same as if I post what some oriental dancing groups think about it.

Because...what's the point of typing what a "extremely biased, unable to be reasonable" people think? Exactly, no point.
 
Sorana fan said:
When these "intangible" things are shared by most of the people, believe me, it's more than "sentimental value".
Click to expand...
It's either sentimental or official. I don't really see the in-between. I'm not arguing against the Olympics by the way. It does have enormous symbolic worth, representing your country and everything. Still, if you tried to argue that Rosset was a better player than Lendl, Sampras or Fed on the basis of his winning the Olympic Gold, I think you would have a very hard time convincing anybody else than yourself. That's why I said it's never 1 title taken separately, but a whole career and all the achievements in it that make you a tennis great or not. Nadal is not a tennis great because he won the Olympic Gold, sorry but that would be a silly argument. He is a tennis great because he's won all 4 slams + 22 masters + tennis gold + DC, etc, etc. It's the accumulation that matters. Olympic Gold in itself would not be such a big deal (other than patriotic pride).
 
veroniquem said:
Still, if you tried to argue that Rosset was a better player than Lendl, Sampras or Fed on the basis of his winning the Olympic Gold, I think you would have a very hard time convincing anybody else than yourself..
Click to expand...

I never said anything like that in the first place. I said most of top players consider Olympic gold as something more important than WTF, some of them even more than a GS.

IMHO if Lendl, Sampras or Fed had only won a WTF in their entire career (no GS, no M1000), then yes, they would be behind Rosset.
 
Sorana fan said:
Ok, then because I dont consider myself unable to be reasonable, I will just think your previous post is worthless for the discussion. The same as if I post what some oriental dancing groups think about it.

Because...what's the point of typing what a "extremely biased, unable to be reasonable" people think? Exactly, no point.
Click to expand...

You would better check the etymology of the word "reasonable".

Also, in my posts you belong where I think that you deserve to belong. There is nothing, that you can do to change that.

8)
 
Sorana fan said:
I never said anything like that in the first place. I said most of top players consider Olympic gold as something more important than WTF, some of them even more than a GS.

IMHO if Lendl, Sampras or Fed had only won a WTF in their entire career (no GS, no M1000), then yes, they would be behind Rosset.
Click to expand...
That's the problem in your reasoning because neither WTF nor Olympics can make a tennis great. One could become a tennis great just by winning slams. One would NEVER become a tennis great by winning ONLY Olympics (even several medals) or ONLY WTFs. Simply not happening and that may be the best proof that however desirable Olympic Gold is( or WTF), slams are valued higher. I also think a guy like Davydenko with his master titles AND WTF AND several seasons in top 5 is ranked higher than Massu and his gold medal in tennis history. If you want to argue that, be my guest.
 
veroniquem said:
That's the problem in your reasoning because neither WTF nor Olympics can make a tennis great. One could become a tennis great just by winning slams. One would NEVER become a tennis great by winning ONLY Olympics (even several medals) or ONLY WTFs. Simply not happening and that may be the best proof that however desirable Olympic Gold is( or WTF). I also think a guy like Davydenko with his master titles and WTF is ranked higher than Massu and his gold medal in tennis history. If you want to argue that, be my guest.
Click to expand...

The problem in your reasoning is that you say I said things I never said.
I NEVER spoke about anyone becoming a tennis great by winning ONLY Olympics or ONLY WTFs. I was just setting a discussion out about which of them (OG, WTF) is more prestigious. Top players already opined.
 
Sorana fan said:
Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon...he didnt even reach any other GS final.
That shows how much important is Wimbledon?
Click to expand...

Let's look at all the recent gold and silver medalists here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_tennis#Singles_.28men.29

1928-1984, not even an event
1988-2012, 3 out of the 7 gold medalist didn't ever win a single grand slam. Out of the 7 silver medalist, only 2 (fed being one) had won a slam.

I can say the competition level is not as high as WTF.

Olympics gold in swimming, track and field, etc is prestigious. In tennis, not as much.
 
Personally, it's the Olympics. To win a gold medal at the Olmypic games, whilst representing your Country has more prestige than the WTF's for me. I certainly know i'd prefer to be standing there with a gold medal around my neck, my national anthem playing and my flag over my shoulders, than be presented with a trophy with Barclays ribbons draped over it. But hey, each to their own.

tennis-barclays-atp-world-tour-finals-day-eight-o2-arena-4-390x285.jpg


andy-murray-2012-OLYMPICS-gold-medal-victory.jpg
 
Don't let the flags and national anthems lead you to believe olympics is not as commercialized as a bank sponsored tournament.
 
Points given make it about the player and not the country they represent.

Giving points takes away from the true meaning and spirit of the Olympics, winning any medal should be enough.
 
Sorana: And I'm saying that you cannot take it out of context. No matter what anyone says Davydenko's career has more prestige than Massu's so somewhere along the line, somehow, you cannot be telling me that if a player like Fognini won the Olympic Gold in 2016, he would have achieved more than Djoko or Fed or any other top player. Anybody saying otherwise is lying, purely and simply. (It would do a lot for him personally but it would not do that much in terms of his place in tennis history).
 
Last edited:
I always thought that the Olympic gold meant drastically different things to different players, fans, tennis writers and commentators, and it's level of prestige was fairly ambiguous. It was sort of an icing on the cake type achievement. The presence of a gold medal on a player's resume looked very good, but, on the other hand, the absence of a gold medal really did not look very bad. Of course players who have actually won it are going to talk it up.

I still don't think it's as prestigious as a Slam by any means, and, honestly, it's not even that impressive of a tournament. With player-per-country restrictions (which can some years reduce the quality of the field) and a just-like-any-other-tournament format, I guess it's prestige simply comes from it's rarity. There's only one and it's only played every 4 years, as where the WTF is played every year, and multiple Masters are played every year.

But, just from reading TW (fans) and looking at the coverage from writers and commentators and hearing players talk about it over the past few years, I think there's more and more common sentiment that the Olympics truly is a big deal in tennis. And, you can't escape the fact that Olympic gold is an accomplishment that everyone recognizes. So, while we (hardcore tennis fans) might debate the relative prestige of an Olympic gold vs. a WTF championship, nearly all casual fans, or even non-fans wouldn't even give it a second thought - Olympics is more prestigious. So many casual sports fans recognize the Olympics as the pinnacle of achievement in a sport, that they don't even consider that in some sports there are other achievements that equal or outrank it.

So, you can't deny its prestige. The Olympics is indisputably incredibly prestigious. I just happen to think that it's prestige is somewhat out of line with what is actually being accomplished (basically a Masters with a gold medal as a prize). Thus, I'd say the Olympics are more "prestigious" than the WTF, but the WTF is an equal or even slightly better tennis accomplishment, if that makes any sense, which it probably doesn't. lol.
 
Last edited:
moonballs said:
Don't let the flags and national anthems lead you to believe olympics is not as commercialized as a bank sponsored tournament.
Click to expand...

The players live in the Olympic village and interact with athletes from every sport. Murray said how he was inspired by watching Farah, Ennis and Rutherford all win gold medals the night before his final. He went out there and played arguably the best match he ever has, beating Federer on grass in 3 straight sets to give himself a moment like those 3 had the night earlier. That's the prestige of the Olympic games, to me, the WTF doesn't have that.
 
moonballs said:
Olympics gold in swimming, track and field, etc is prestigious. In tennis, not as much.
Click to expand...

Agassi won it, Nadal won it, Murray won it, Djokovic would kill for it, he'll have one more chance, Federer lost definitely his opportunity.

Yes, years ago wasnt considered that important, but nowadays IS
 
Yeah well as I said it's a minefield as emotion runs high about it. I understand bluetrain. It has meaning, it has impact but in terms of tennis achievements, I would not put it anywhere near the top. For instance, Murray said his Olympic win means more to him than his USO win and I'm sure he's sincere. Still, in terms of being taken seriously, his USO win is what carries more clout.
 
Feña14 said:
Personally, it's the Olympics. To win a gold medal at the Olmypic games, whilst representing your Country has more prestige than the WTF's for me. I certainly know i'd prefer to be standing there with a gold medal around my neck, my national anthem playing and my flag over my shoulders, than be presented with a trophy with Barclays ribbons draped over it. But hey, each to their own.

tennis-barclays-atp-world-tour-finals-day-eight-o2-arena-4-390x285.jpg


andy-murray-2012-OLYMPICS-gold-medal-victory.jpg
Click to expand...

The spirit of the Olympics is different, from what you are refering to.

The culture is going downhill. Fast.
 
veroniquem said:
Sorana: And I'm saying that you cannot take it out of context. No matter what anyone says Davydenko's career has more prestige than Massu's so somewhere along the line, somehow, you cannot be telling me that if a player like Fognini won the Olympic Gold in 2016, he would have achieved more than Djoko or Fed or any other top player. Anybody saying otherwise is lying, purely and simply. (It would do a lot for him personally but it would not do that much in terms of his place in tennis history).
Click to expand...

Which career is more prestigious for you veroniquem, Gaudio's or Davydenko's?
 
Sorana fan said:
Agassi won it, Nadal won it, Murray won it, Djokovic would kill for it, he'll have one more chance, Federer lost definitely his opportunity.

Yes, years ago wasnt considered that important, but nowadays IS
Click to expand...

It's very nice to have but doesn't have a lot of importance as far as a players ability as shown on the career resume.

Just the fact that it has increased in prestige means it doesn't measure so much the players ability but measures what the players want.

Fed wanted his home tournament but winning it didn't show he was any better of a player hardly at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Are WTF and Olympic Gold in singles equallly relevant?
2
Replies
90
Views
3K
Deleted member 805385
D
harrpau7
  • Poll Poll
Olympic Gold, where does it rank?
Replies
24
Views
2K
caulcano
C
TennisCanada1
Olympic Gold / GS Combo
Replies
19
Views
1K
jrs
J
Better_Call_Raul
Forget about bronze and silver. A Gold Medal Is The Only Medal That Counts In Olympic Tennis.
2
Replies
68
Views
1K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
K
Is an Olympic Doubles Gold Medal equal to an Olympic Singles Gold Medal
2 3 4
Replies
188
Views
12K
TMF
T
Back
Top