Olympic Gold (singles) versus Wimbledon Singles Title (Trophy)

pirateofthecarribean

Hall of Fame
The Olympics is the most important international sports event that comes only once every 4 years and Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. So, I was wondering, which is "better" between an Olympics Gold in singles tennis and a Wimbledon singles title/trophy? This comparison applies to both ATP and WTA. :D
 

A.Davidson

Semi-Pro
Although the Olympics have a great history, any tennis player will tell you that Wimbledon is their dream. Any form of victory at the Olympics is great, but Wimbledon is truly the pinnacle of tennis.
 

squints

Rookie
yeah, the Olympics may be the most imporant international sports event, but professional[/i} tennis already is a international. Really the Olympics are secondary, if not even even less important, to the sport of Tennis, especially compared to Wimbledon.
 

pirateofthecarribean

Hall of Fame
Right! But to be a "great" tennis player, I think an Olympics Gold in singles tennis is mandatory (though there is only 1 Olympics once every 4 years).
 
any athlete can win an olympic medal, only a talented tennis player can win a wimby, they even have a ****** olympics or stupid people olympics for those small brained people or wheel chair people, LMAO!.
 

Max G.

Legend
Wimbledon, to be sure. The Olympics rank relatively low on the tennis importance scale - higher than regular international series tournaments, but lower than Slams or even Masters Series.
 

Rhino

Legend
any athlete can win an olympic medal, only a talented tennis player can win a wimby, they even have a ****** olympics or stupid people olympics for those small brained people or wheel chair people, LMAO!.

Thats a bit harsh mate, they have a wheelchair US Open as well, and not just ANY athlete can win an Olympic gold.

That said, there's no competition, Wimbledon is the greatest trophy a tennis player can win.
 
The Olympics is the most important international sports event that comes only once every 4 years and Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. So, I was wondering, which is "better" between an Olympics Gold in singles tennis and a Wimbledon singles title/trophy? This comparison applies to both ATP and WTA. :D


Olympics is important when you have won the Grand Slam because an Olympic gold gives you the Golden Grand Slam which almost automatically propells you to GOAT status.

Condi
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
I don't think any player would turn an Olympic medal, I mean who in their right mind wouldn't like to drape a medal around their neck just to say that they've done it. With that said, I think while an Olympic medal is really, REALLY cool to have, nad because it comes every four years only, I think I'd rather have it than a Masters title, even possibly the year ending championship, BUT it's STILL *just a novelty* item. Heck, these guys are rich enough, why not get a replica medal made, and say whoopee I've got one just like they make replica wrestling title belts for kids.

Yeah, it's cool to have, but still ultimately just a novelty in real terms.

To be honest, I think the real appeal of the Olympics to players is getting to hang out with other athletes besides just tennis players. For some of them, I read, that that's the greatest thing, just to stay in the Olympic village and not be treated like your God's gift for once, that they wouldn't dream of staying in a posh hotel like some of the other top players; that for them the thrill is in just being able to mingle and feel like a kid in summer camp again. To be honest, for me, that would be the main appeal too, to feel like I'm a part of something bigger than just my sport, but also ALL sports in general, the whole Olympic "ideal" thing.
 
Last edited:

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
The Olympic tennis event hasn't the pedigree that The Championships have.

Olympic tennis has only taken place (as a full, "metalled") sport only thirteen times: 1896, 1900, 1904, 1906, 1908, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. It was a "demonstration" sport at Mexico 1968 and Los Angeles 1984 (for amateurs). Wimbledon has taken place many more times than that, and has developed an unparalleled sense of tradition and atmosphere; a mystique of excellence that those in and around the game understand. The Olympic tournaments of late are well-run tournaments, but have a sort of "instant event" versus "institution" feel about them. Wimbledon's an institution; any particular Olympic tennis tournament is just an event.
 
Tennis shouldnt be in the Olympics for the very reason that everyone here is saying the Wimbledon title is bigger. It's disrespectful to all the athletes who compete in sports where the Olympics is THE ONLY THING to have tennis in there where no one really even cares about it. Let the Olympics remain amateur and focusing on sports where its all they'll ever have in their life to compete in...get tennis out of there.
 
any athlete can win an olympic medal, only a talented tennis player can win a wimby, they even have a ****** olympics or stupid people olympics for those small brained people or wheel chair people, LMAO!.

But do they have a category for all three?

If so.. my money's on you.

Anyway, people used to think of the Australian as a lesser slam, and it's now on par with the others. The Olympics will gain prestige as time goes on. Tennis is relatively new to the games.
 

edmondsm

Legend
The Olympics just aren't prestigous when it comes to popular sports. Hate to say it.

Soccer: They don't even allow over 23's
Basketball: The U.S always sends the B team.
Tennis: It just injects itself into the busiest part of the season, which makes it a crap shoot.
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
Winning Wimbledon is NOT my dream if I had to choose any grand slam to be my first win. It's actually my last, but up against the Olympic gold medal I'd choose Wimbledon only because I'm going to be playing the best of the best to win.
 
Top