The final and maximum points status of an Olympic Gold

[timnz]

Currently it is not even worth the same as a Masters 1000 in points (it is 750 points to the winner). Given that since Nadal (but not before) won in 2008, its status in people's eyes has grown. What do you think its value should be at the top end, if its points allocation increase?

My view is that it should not ever exceed 1250 points. That would put it behind the slams and the WTF but higher than a Master 1000. 1250 points seems about right to me as a maximum. No way should it ever be rated higher than the WTF. Lots of reasons for this:

1/ Can't rate higher because it would wipe out over 40 years of tradition of the WTF being the most important event outside the Slams.

2/ It doesn't deserve it. At the WTF you have to play the deepest field in tennis (even harder in some ways than the slams), whereas to win Gold you are only facing top players probably from the semi's on.

So I am happy with the 750 points it is now. As a purely tennis achievement it doesn't match even a Masters 1000 in terms of field depth. But if you give it more points due to status - please don't ever let it get higher than 1250 (with the Slams being 2000 and the WTF being 1500).

 

[WhiskeyEE]

It shouldn't be worth much. A lot of players who would qualify for an ATP event can't compete in the olympics because their nation has met its quota, or some other technicality.

750 sounds about right.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Currently it is not even worth the same as a Masters 1000 in points (it is 750 points to the winner). Given that since Nadal (but not before) won in 2008, its status in people's eyes has grown. What do you think its value should be at the top end, if its points allocation increase?

My view is that it should not ever exceed 1250 points. That would put it behind the slams and the WTF but higher than a Master 1000. 1250 points seems about right to me as a maximum. No way should it ever be rated higher than the WTF. Lots of reasons for this:

1/ Can't rate higher because it would wipe out over 40 years of tradition of the WTF being the most important event outside the Slams.

2/ It doesn't deserve it. At the WTF you have to play the deepest field in tennis (even harder in some ways than the slams), whereas to win Gold you are only facing top players probably from the semi's on.

So I am happy with the 750 points it is now. As a purely tennis achievement it doesn't match even a Masters 1000 in terms of field depth. But if you give it more points due to status - please don't ever let it get higher than 1250 (with the Slams being 2000 and the WTF being 1500).

Too late, they already wiped that out by making it to best of 3 sets. I guess that's why Fed was lobbying for it to be best of 5 sets after last years wtf.

 

[tudwell]

Too late, they already wiped that out by making it to best of 3 sets. I guess that's why Fed was lobbying for it to be best of 5 sets after last years wtf.

It was only ever the final that was best of five. Are Masters events worth less now that they no longer have best of five finals, too?

I mean, I would definitely prefer a best of five final, but it is what it is.

 

[ViscaB]

The Olympics are not about points or money but about competing and honor.

 

[DRII]

Nice rationalizing!

You lose.

The singles Olympic gold is worth far more than the WTF (the only event where you can actually lose but still win)! And you (and other Federer-fanatics) know it!

And actually at 750 points its actually worth 3000 points because its only played once every four years!

 

[tudwell]

It shouldn't be worth much. A lot of players who would qualify for an ATP event can't compete in the olympics because their nation has met its quota, or some other technicality.

750 sounds about right.

That's true, but it's also a best of five final and even more importantly it's a very significant sporting event that a lot of guys are very motivated to win. It may not have always been that way, but it is now. I like the OP's idea of making it 1250ish points.

 

[tudwell]

The Olympics are not about points or money but about competing and honor.

I also agree with this. I think if it's gonna be worth points, it should be worth more than it is now, but I could also see it being worth no ATP points at all without decreasing the prestige of the event.

 

[tudwell]

Nice rationalizing!

You lose.

The singles Olympic gold is worth far more than the WTF (the only event where you can actually lose but still win)! And you (and other Federer-fanatics) know it!

That's not true. A player could lose literally every match they play at the Davis Cup and still be a part of the winning team. And other tournaments have lucky losers who lose in qualifying but get placed into the main draw when someone pulls out. They don't win big events often (or at all, as far as I know), but it's possible to not even qualify for a grand slam and still win it.

 

[roysid]

Whatever the atp decides. In 2008 it was 400 points, translates to 800 now.

 

[tistrapukcipeht]

1250 should be right or 1500 points.

 

[DRII]

That's not true. A player could lose literally every match they play at the Davis Cup and still be a part of the winning team. And other tournaments have lucky losers who lose in qualifying but get placed into the main draw when someone pulls out. They don't win big events often (or at all, as far as I know), but it's possible to not even qualify for a grand slam and still win it.

The D.C. is not a singles event.

And your 'lucky looser' analogy is weak and has never happened before!

Qualifying for an event is not the event itself!

 

[Towser83]

Nice rationalizing!

You lose.

The singles Olympic gold is worth far more than the WTF (the only event where you can actually lose but still win)! And you (and other Federer-fanatics) know it!

And actually at 750 points its actually worth 3000 points because its only played once every four years!

It's also the only event where every match could be against a top 8 opponent.

And your final statement makes no sense, it's worth 750 points, no matter how often they hold it.

Only Nadal fans/fed haters care so much for the olympics. I'd laugh my arse off if Federer actually won it because then all of a sudden davis cup would become the biggest event.

The D.C. is not a singles event.

And your 'lucky looser' analogy is weak and has never happened before!

Qualifying for an event is not the event itself!

Ok, remember that when discussing Nadal, Federer and their successes at DC and what it means for their greatness.

btw, an unbeaten title run at the WTF is worth 1500. a slam is worth 2000. what should the olympics be worth in your opinion?

 

[akv89]

Nice rationalizing!

You lose.

The singles Olympic gold is worth far more than the WTF (the only event where you can actually lose but still win)! And you (and other Federer-fanatics) know it!

And actually at 750 points its actually worth 3000 points because its only played once every four years!

So?

10char

 

[Deleted member 3771]

The status of the Olympics is equal to Wimbledon, or higher depending on who you ask. The points have nothing to do with the status of the Olympics, I don't think anyone is too fussed about the point allocation. It's probably not a good idea to allocate too many points to the Olympics since they can't even defend the title the following year.

 

[tudwell]

The D.C. is not a singles event.

And your 'lucky looser' analogy is weak and has never happened before!

Qualifying for an event is not the event itself!

Well, I never said they were exactly the same thing. But in any case, a round robin format isn't inherently worse than a single-elimination format. Lots of other sports have titles you can win without having to win every single match or game you play (NBA Finals, World Series, etc.)

Back in the days of the professional/amateur split, pros would often have series against one another, and it was very rare that they didn't lose at least one match in those series, and yet someone was still declared the winner of the series at the end.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

It's also the only event where every match could be against a top 8 opponent.

And your final statement makes no sense, it's worth 750 points, no matter how often they hold it.

Only Nadal fans/fed haters care so much for the olympics. I'd laugh my arse off if Federer actually won it because then all of a sudden davis cup would become the biggest event.




Ok, remember that when discussing Nadal, Federer and their successes at DC and what it means for their greatness.

btw, an unbeaten title run at the WTF is worth 1500. a slam is worth 2000. what should the olympics be worth in your opinion?

About 1000, thats a nice round number.

 

[Towser83]

About 1000, thats a nice round number.

i mainly asked that because DII thought it was more important than the WTF, which implies it should be more than 1500

 

[Towser83]

The status of the Olympics is equal to Wimbledon, or higher depending on who you ask. The points have nothing to do with the status of the Olympics, I don't think anyone is too fussed about the point allocation. It's probably not a good idea to allocate too many points to the Olympics since they can't even defend the title the following year.

or lower,if you ask sane people.

What would be funny is if Federer actually won olympic gold,so had that over sampras as well. 8 titles of Wimbledon status to 7

 

[Rjtennis]

I dont think they should award points for it. Countries qualifying standards are different and not everyone (who should) gets a chance to play. Just look at whats happening to the male German players. Its a huge event, but people are playing for their country not ranking points.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

i mainly asked that because DII thought it was more important than the WTF, which implies it should be more than 1500

Its way more important than the wtf, but it doesn't need to be indicated by points. Ask a sponsors how much they will pay a top player for winning the gold compared to winning the wtf.

 

[TeflonTom]

point of competing in olympics isn't rankings points

the only reason they give points at all is to make up for the fact that players gotta skip a week on tour in order to participate

otherwise every1 who took part would just drop down the rankings cos they were foregoing defending points from whatever tourney they played last year instead

 

[Towser83]

I dont think they should award points for it. Countries qualifying standards are different and not everyone (who should) gets a chance to play. Just look at whats happening to the male German players. Its a huge event, but people are playing for their country not ranking points.

true.Plus you can't defend the points the next year.No points, just play for the love of your country

 

[Deleted member 3771]

or lower,if you ask sane people.

What would be funny is if Federer actually won olympic gold,so had that over sampras as well. 8 titles of Wimbledon status to 7

I guess Fed isn't very sane then since he's one of the people who said that winning the singles gold would mean as much to him as winning Wimbledon.

 

[Towser83]

Its way more important than the wtf, but it doesn't need to be indicated by points. Ask a sponsors how much they will pay a top player for winning the gold compared to winning the wtf.

the name "olympics" have more cache worldwide to the greater public,but the WTF is a far more historic event, with more prestige within tennis, a bigger test of players and linked with most of the greatest players in history.

Winning the olympics is like having the latest Iphone, it's for show but it doesn't really mean as much as the WTF or a slam. To say it's equal to wimbledonor any slam is laughable. It simply isn't in terms of the TENNIS world.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

or lower,if you ask sane people.

What would be funny is if Federer actually won olympic gold,so had that over sampras as well. 8 titles of Wimbledon status to 7

That would be fantastic. why do you keep making references to Sampras as if that matters to me. Fed is concerned about what he's winning compared to his own competition. If he wins the Gold , then he can start chasing 4 Davis Cups.

 

[Towser83]

I guess Fed isn't very sane then since he's one of the people who said that winning the singles gold would mean as much to him as winning Wimbledon.

Hey, there's a fine line between genius and insanity.

 

[Towser83]

That would be fantastic. why do you keep making references to Sampras as if that matters to me. Fed is concerned about what he's winning compared to his own competition. If he wins the Gold , then he can start chasing 4 Davis Cups.

and then sampras can start chasing 17 slams...

and of course it matters to you, you are a massive ****. But you can have all those DC titles. Fed can have the ones you win on your own with no help from others.

 

[TeflonTom]

DCs are nice but not relevant to individual achievements

give any of the top players nadz's teammates n theyd prolly have 4 cups

 

[Deleted member 3771]

and then sampras can start chasing 17 slams...

and of course it matters to you, you are a massive ****. But you can have all those DC titles. Fed can have the ones you win on your own with no help from others.

Why would he chase 17 when he already has the equivalent of about 25 of Today's slams. 14 with a tiny 85" racket and no poly is equivalent to achieving about 25 of today's slams.

 

[Towser83]

Why would he chase 17 when he already has the equivalent of about 25 of Today's slams. 14 with a tiny 85" racket and no poly is equivalent to achieving about 25 of today's slams.

because he would need 25 slams since, Borg's 11 slams with a wood racquet were worth about 40 of Sampras's slams. Btw, how many of those 25 slams are french opens? :lol: Also why would fed chase a DC when it's a pile of s*** only meant for nationalists who need help winning?

seriously the racquet argument is the most pathetic **** argument yet. Might as well argue that Federer would be beating Nadal and Djokovic every slam if he was using the racquet they were.

And there in lies the real argument. It's all about relative difficulty. Sure it may be harder to hit a great shot with a smaller racquet head, but you can win pretty or win ugly. If your opponent also play with the same racquet head size, they are also at the same disadvantage. If they play with a larger head, then Federer has the same problem with his competition.

Hence fed is more dominant vs his competition than Sampras was vs his. And we all know that Sampras was being blitzed by young guys like Safin and Hewitt (guys Federer would rule) when he was Fed's current age, yet Federer is beating his young rivals, still number one, even with their smaller racquets. He's at the same disadvantage but doing much better.

I know it hurts. Thing is, I have respect for Sampras, but ****s like you make it so easy to smile when another one of his records bites the dust.

 

[DRII]

It's also the only event where every match could be against a top 8 opponent.

And your final statement makes no sense, it's worth 750 points, no matter how often they hold it.

Only Nadal fans/fed haters care so much for the olympics. I'd laugh my arse off if Federer actually won it because then all of a sudden davis cup would become the biggest event.




Ok, remember that when discussing Nadal, Federer and their successes at DC and what it means for their greatness.

btw, an unbeaten title run at the WTF is worth 1500. a slam is worth 2000. what should the olympics be worth in your opinion?

Uhm, no.

If Federer won the Olympics singles gold then the count would be 18>12.

The SOG is certainly worth the same as a slam for multiple slam winners IMO.

And as far as points, I think 3000 is reasonable, since the Olympics is only once every four years.

Do the 750 pts fall off of the winner of the SOG after one year, or does it stay until the next SOG?

 

[Leto]

Olympics should be worth zero points.

Is there any other professional sport that includes the Olympics as having any part of their ranking system, other than tennis?

Maybe when they bring back Golf in 2016?

 

[dudeski]

Nice rationalizing!

You lose.

The singles Olympic gold is worth far more than the WTF (the only event where you can actually lose but still win)! And you (and other Federer-fanatics) know it!

And actually at 750 points its actually worth 3000 points because its only played once every four years!

That's why I like WTF so much. I get to see Nadal lose multiple times in one tournament. 2009 was especially fun when I got to see Nadal lose 3 times in straight sets.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Uhm, no.

If Federer won the Olympics singles gold then the count would be 18>12.

The SOG is certainly worth the same as a slam for multiple slam winners IMO.

And as far as points, I think 3000 is reasonable, since the Olympics is only once every four years.

Do the 750 pts fall off of the winner of the SOG after one year, or does it stay until the next SOG?

The Olympic points fall off the year after. Rafa's points from 08 aren't still counted in 12, and shouldn't be. The Olympics are not worth the same as a slam when it comes to tennis. The slams are events that have been played for hundreds of years, while tennis just returned to the Olympics in 1988 after not being around for the majority of the Open Era. Ridiculous to think they should hold the same place in history as winning a slam.

 

[Bruce39]

LOL 3000 points for OG? How stupid can people actually be?

 

[dudeski]

The Olympic points fall off the year after. Rafa's points from 08 aren't still counted in 12, and shouldn't be. The Olympics are not worth the same as a slam when it comes to tennis. The slams are events that have been played for hundreds of years, while tennis just returned to the Olympics in 1988 after not being around for the majority of the Open Era. Ridiculous to think they should hold the same place in history as winning a slam.

I think the fact that Nicolas Massu won gold in 2004 says it all.

 

[Russeljones]

It should be 1500 since it's once every 4 years.

 

[SLD76]

It shouldn't be worth much. A lot of players who would qualify for an ATP event can't compete in the olympics because their nation has met its quota, or some other technicality.

750 sounds about right.

basically this.

why should an event played every 4 years be worht as much as tour masters or slam?

Not to mention, I dont think its right that pro tour players even be in the olympics.

Imo, it should be amateur and for juniors only.

 

[TMF]

Since DRII believe OG = Grand Slam title then if Murray wins the OG that should take the gigantic monkey off his back.

 

[DRII]

The Olympic points fall off the year after. Rafa's points from 08 aren't still counted in 12, and shouldn't be. The Olympics are not worth the same as a slam when it comes to tennis. The slams are events that have been played for hundreds of years, while tennis just returned to the Olympics in 1988 after not being around for the majority of the Open Era. Ridiculous to think they should hold the same place in history as winning a slam.

Yea, and not too long ago it was ridiculous to think that the Australian Open was worth even attending and worth anything near the other slams :twisted:

See how things change, regardless of your subjective history lessons!

 

[BigServer1]

The status of the Olympics is equal to Wimbledon, or higher depending on who you ask. The points have nothing to do with the status of the Olympics, I don't think anyone is too fussed about the point allocation. It's probably not a good idea to allocate too many points to the Olympics since they can't even defend the title the following year.

What? Who have you been asking?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Yea, and not too long ago it was ridiculous to think that the Australian Open was worth even attending and worth anything near the other slams :twisted:

See how things change, regardless of your subjective history lessons!

The Olympics are changing but are still not going to be of the same value or prestige of any of the slams. At most they may surpass the wtf and some masters but never any of the slams.

 

[DRII]

The Olympics are changing but are still not going to be of the same value or prestige of any of the slams. At most they may surpass the wtf and some masters but never any of the slams.

You have no idea that will be the case!

As my example of the Aussie Open and its relative insignificance not too long ago can attest to...

 

[TeflonTom]

What? Who have you been asking?

jacques rogge

 

[BigServer1]

If the Olympic Gold = A Major title, then Nicolas Massu is a Major winner from 2004.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Currently it is not even worth the same as a Masters 1000 in points (it is 750 points to the winner). Given that since Nadal (but not before) won in 2008, its status in people's eyes has grown. What do you think its value should be at the top end, if its points allocation increase?

My view is that it should not ever exceed 1250 points. That would put it behind the slams and the WTF but higher than a Master 1000. 1250 points seems about right to me as a maximum. No way should it ever be rated higher than the WTF. Lots of reasons for this:

1/ Can't rate higher because it would wipe out over 40 years of tradition of the WTF being the most important event outside the Slams.

2/ It doesn't deserve it. At the WTF you have to play the deepest field in tennis (even harder in some ways than the slams), whereas to win Gold you are only facing top players probably from the semi's on.

So I am happy with the 750 points it is now. As a purely tennis achievement it doesn't match even a Masters 1000 in terms of field depth. But if you give it more points due to status - please don't ever let it get higher than 1250 (with the Slams being 2000 and the WTF being 1500).

1200 seems about right.

Due to status considerations and the simple fact, that the final is best of 5.

But it is a thing for the future. We are talking about 2016 or even after that.

 

[Leto]

I am continually shocked at how many points people want to give to an Olympic gold :shock:

What makes an Olympic gold special is not the points, but the pride in achieving something for your country.

I also feel the same way about Davis Cup and it's convoluted way of having some potential form of impact to overall ATP Ranking points.

I asked before if there is any other pro sport, that awards some form of points for the Olympics, and I'm guessing there probably isn't one outside of tennis.

Even in golf, where they have things like the Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup, it has nothing to do with an inividual's ranking points, because the entire premise of the event is that it's about your country...not how much points you might be able to personally add to your pro ranking :-?

 

[smoledman]

So if the W only gets 750 points then even the ATP considers OGG < a 1000 event? Who cares then?

 

[Towser83]

Uhm, no.

If Federer won the Olympics singles gold then the count would be 18>12.

The SOG is certainly worth the same as a slam for multiple slam winners IMO.

And as far as points, I think 3000 is reasonable, since the Olympics is only once every four years.

Do the 750 pts fall off of the winner of the SOG after one year, or does it stay until the next SOG?

No, the olympics is not the same as a slam and never will be. Even if you argued it was as important it's still a totally different category. Miami for a few years was bigger than any olympics since it had 7 best of 5 matches. Olympics should be 7 best of 5 matches and then the challenge presented would at least be the same as a slam.

Giving the olympics 3000 points (more than a slam) is ridiculous and anyone who thinks this has no respect for tennis as a sport in it's own right, they're just being fanboys for the olympics, a massive event, but not historically for tennis. Tennis has it's own olympics, 4 of them in fact, they're called slams!

You do realise that you don't keep the points til the next olympics don't you? It drops off the year after (just one reason it shouldn't be worth 3000 points) again another sign of your lack of knowledge. Keeping 3000 points for 4 years would be insane.

And so what that it's held only once every 4 years? That means the WTF is 4 times as important as a slam,since you only get one chance a year compared to 4 for slams.