Olympic Gold, where does it rank?

Olymic Importance

  • Above a Grand Slam

    Votes: 8 12.9%
  • Same as a Grand Slam

    Votes: 15 24.2%
  • Same as a Masters Series Title

    Votes: 27 43.5%
  • Same level as Queen's

    Votes: 7 11.3%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 5 8.1%

  • Total voters
    62

harrpau7

Rookie
It comes around once every 4 years, some players want to win it, some don't care, but how prestigious is an Olympic Gold medal.

I put it on the same level as a slam, the ratios of slams to olympic gold is 16:1, and to win a medal at the Olympics is every athlete's drream.

Thoughts?
 
I think it ranks just below a Slam, but not as low as an MS event. I guess it's on the same level as the year end tournament.

I'm sure if you ask most players, they would rather win a Slam than Olympic Gold.
 
I say higher than all the above as it is only every 4 years you even have a chance, and then of course we don't have all the BS people of the biased ATP
 
It's worth about as much as a Memphis, Rotterdam, or Buenos Aires (My God) title.
 
Massu actually won TWO golds in Athens,singles and doubles (w.Gonzalez),which were Chile's first ever!
On the way he beat Kuerten,Moya,Youzhny and Fish in the 5-set final,where his was exhausted cause he had played the doubles final hours before!
 
I think it ranks just below a Slam, but not as low as an MS event. I guess it's on the same level as the year end tournament.

I'm sure if you ask most players, they would rather win a Slam than Olympic Gold.

Agreed.
How about Bronze?
Is that worth anything at all? :p
 
I'd say the slams rank alot higher than an olympic gold. But I think the reason is that the olympics have nothing to offer tennis because it is always played as a worldwide sport rather than a bunch of tennis leagues at the national levels that come together to form olympic teams. So there's no different competition to it than the slams have.
 
I rank it just below a slam. The pressure can be huge to win at the Olympics, which is why I rank it above Masters.
 
It's really not like anything else, so it's hard to compare. It's prestigous in a way that a Masters tourney could never be. I mean, it's the freakin' Olympics, the athlete is representing their country, they get a gold medal.

But, career wise and history wise, it has to fall below a Slam. The Olympic draw is nowhere near as tough as a Slam and the format (for men at least) isn't as like a regular tour event. Moreover, tennis has only been officially in the Olympics since 1988. Edberg won the gold as a demonstration sport in 1984.

Also, depends on the player, depends on the country. I'd say the Chinese players (especially if they won in Beijing) would equate an Olympic gold with a slam or even put it above a Slam, since China puts so much emphasis on Olympic achievement, to the point where olympic champions are celebrities in a way that all but a few of America's champtions are. Players from other countries (like Fed) may not care as much.

Ask Lindsey Davenport, who puts her '96 gold right up there with her Slams. So, it depends on the player.

But, my main argument is that no matter how an individual views them, the fact is that unlike other sports, tennis doesn't need the Olympics, it already has its historic, prestige events - The Slams.

I once read an editorial about how the Olympics were getting too bloated, too many events, too many athletes. The writer discussed criteria for eliminating events. One was no offshoots of other events. Do we need volleyball and beach volleyball, diving and synchronized diving?

But, what made most sense was this: eliminate sports where the most prestigious event isn't the Olympics. This made perfect sense. Tennis, golf, to some extent soccer (World Cup). Not that an Olympic gold isn't a momumental achievement in those sports, but for a track and field athlete, or swimmer, for example the Olympics are the absolute top of career accomplishment. You can't say that for tennis.

Also,
 
But, my main argument is that no matter how an individual views them, the fact is that unlike other sports, tennis doesn't need the Olympics, it already has its historic, prestige events - The Slams.

I once read an editorial about how the Olympics were getting too bloated, too many events, too many athletes. The writer discussed criteria for eliminating events. One was no offshoots of other events. Do we need volleyball and beach volleyball, diving and synchronized diving?

But, what made most sense was this: eliminate sports where the most prestigious event isn't the Olympics. This made perfect sense. Tennis, golf, to some extent soccer (World Cup). Not that an Olympic gold isn't a momumental achievement in those sports, but for a track and field athlete, or swimmer, for example the Olympics are the absolute top of career accomplishment. You can't say that for tennis.

Also,


That sounds good to me.
 
Back
Top