D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
You're missing the context. It's only a disadvantage in the context of comparing statistics from totally different eras.
The final and maximum points status of an Olympic Gold
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
You're missing the context. It's only a disadvantage in the context of comparing statistics from totally different eras.
JustBob
Hall of Fame
Ok, then provide evidence to back up your claim that "no poly causes more inherent variability in results across the board." And prove that if such variability even exists, it's mainly due to "no poly" and not to a bunch of other factors.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
I mentioned the highly polarized surfaces and the poly. The higher variability in results is EXPECTED to exist obviously when players use strings with a lot less control and play on highly polarized surfaces which also leads to surface specialists.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You are really a piece of work!
You group the slams as if they are all the same tournament played 4 times a year. How stupid! They are each an individual tournament.
And the WTF is basically an exhibition (I don’t care if Nadal had 10 of them)! It does have panache, I wouldn't say prestige... Its essentially a reward and showcase for the top 8 players in the world, where you can actually lose but still win
And as far as the Olympics, i think the points should stay on a player's record until he or she has a chance to defend it; just like every other tournament...
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
That is only RR stage. Using your logic, World Cup events are merely exhibition events because there are chances of a loss in the play-off stages or atleast a draw.You are really a piece of work!
You group the slams as if they are all the same tournament played 4 times a year. How stupid! They are each an individual tournament.
And the WTF is basically an exhibition (I don’t care if Nadal had 10 of them)! It does have panache, I wouldn't say prestige... Its essentially a reward and showcase for the top 8 players in the world, where you can actually lose but still win
And as far as the Olympics, i think the points should stay on a player's record until he or she has a chance to defend it; just like every other tournament...
The truth is, *******s can't handle the fact that WTF has a much longer, deeper history than the Olympics, is worth more points and has had more notable winners than Olympics ever did. Not to mention a far tougher field.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Please don't bring up boring soccer; this is a tennis forum!
A lot of tennis tournaments have a 'longer, deeper history' than the Olympics; so what!!!
By your logic 99% of tennis tournaments are more important than the SOG; which is ludicrous
And your 'far tougher field' argument is suspect. The top 8 players are usually quite familiar with one another. It's much more difficult on average to win a slam with 128 players to potentially deal with than the same top 8 that you are used to seeing, particularly when every round is determinative, unlike the WTF!
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Not just soccer. Cricket too. Don't be upset I pointed out your failure at logic again.
Except you needed to read that entire sentence and not just those two words.
No, that is not my logic. That is your misrepresentation of my logic born out of reading without context and comprehension.By your logic 99% of tennis tournaments are more important than the SOG; which is ludicrous
The top 8 are by far the best players in the world. Particularly the top 4. This makes the WTF unique and arguably harder to win. The round logic of course is stupid as I have already demonstrated.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Not just soccer. Cricket too. Don't be upset I pointed out your failure at logic again.
Except you needed to read that entire sentence and not just those two words.
No, that is not my logic. That is your misrepresentation of my logic born out of reading without context and comprehension.
The top 8 are by far the best players in the world. Particularly the top 4. This makes the WTF unique and arguably harder to win. The round logic of course is stupid as I have already demonstrated.
Leave cricket in your closet as well; this is a tennis forum!
You have little logic to misinterpret in the first place!
In case you didn't notice; the top 4 have been competing for each of the slams as well; so the WTF is not unique in that manner!
What unique is that you can lose but still win.
Take note!
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
Mardy Fish?? Since when was he ever a factor in the world tennis stage?
Especially since everyone now knows what a racist coward he is!!
BigServer1
Legend
You are really a piece of work!
You group the slams as if they are all the same tournament played 4 times a year. How stupid! They are each an individual tournament.
And the WTF is basically an exhibition (I don’t care if Nadal had 10 of them)! It does have panache, I wouldn't say prestige... Its essentially a reward and showcase for the top 8 players in the world, where you can actually lose but still win
And as far as the Olympics, i think the points should stay on a player's record until he or she has a chance to defend it; just like every other tournament...
Just like the Davis Cup, World Cup, NBA, MLB and NHL Playoffs, and countless other sporting events all across the world.
The Round Robin format of the WTF is what makes it awesome. In groups, everyone plays everyone, and it's the top 8 players in the world, so the level of competition is higher round by round than in any other tournament.
In 5 of Federer's 6 WTF wins, he ran the table, winning all 5 matches he played. In 2003, 2006 and 2007 he won the finals in best of 5 sets.
No. Because Rafa has won a bunch of Masters. Even a third-rate non-mandatory masters like Monte Carlo is worth more than the WTF.
blue steel
Rookie
the olympics is where they take sports that no one cares about and cram them all into a 2 week period and make a big deal out of it and people only care because of the nationalistic spin. sports that people actually care about never place that much importance on the olympics. it should be 500 points at best.
JustBob
Hall of Fame
Surfaces yes, poly strings no. Poly strings have influenced strategy and style of play, they've had no impact on "variability in results".
JustBob
Hall of Fame
And calling the WTF an "exhibition" is just plain silly. And arguing that it's somewhat easier because the top players know each other is even sillier. Only the top 8 players participate, which means you have to face, and beat the toughest competition possible in tennis. Considering how rare Rosol type upsets are, how is it easier to face players who are essentially the only ones with a chance to beat you?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Yea...
awsome for an exhibition tournament!
No way any slam would have such a format. I can't imagine any real top individual sporting event functioning as RR...
Takes away the true pressure of competing and thus is something to have fun with.
Thank you, JBfan. As for the argument over whether an Olympic medal is more important than a Grand Slam, Mr. and Mrs. Andre Agassi are obviously very patriotic to choose the medal.
I think I finally understand why tennis is the only pro sport to award actual ranking points during the Olympics.
As much as the players claim that it's important, a dream come true, blah blah blah, they need to be enticed with some form of points to really put their hearts into it.
Pretty disappointing overall, because even the biggest egomaniacs from the NBA, simply participate without any form of direct personal gain (obviously, no financial compensation, but also, no way to earn any form of "personal" points like tennis players do).
It doesn't mean I value an Olympic gold any less, as far as it's tremendous prestige, but it's almost embarrassing that tennis seems to be the only pro sport that needs to assign points for it, as if somehow, that's the only way their pro players would ever bother participating in it.
As much as the players claim that it's important, a dream come true, blah blah blah, they need to be enticed with some form of points to really put their hearts into it.
Pretty disappointing overall, because even the biggest egomaniacs from the NBA, simply participate without any form of direct personal gain (obviously, no financial compensation, but also, no way to earn any form of "personal" points like tennis players do).
It doesn't mean I value an Olympic gold any less, as far as it's tremendous prestige, but it's almost embarrassing that tennis seems to be the only pro sport that needs to assign points for it, as if somehow, that's the only way their pro players would ever bother participating in it.
Why not do what the hockey players do?
When it is a Winter Olympic year, both the players and the NHL league make an agreement to put a FULL HALT to their regular pro season. No players make any money, or obviously, earn any kind of personal points. But at the same time, both player and the league take HUGE risks that one of their superstar players could get seriously injured, given the relative violence of hockey compared to most other sports.
Let's face it, if I were a pro tennis player and could find a way to make some kind of personal gain through the Olympics, I'd probably be all for it, so I applaud them for being the only pro sport that has managed to pull this off, while also getting to party their asses off in the Olympic Village
No more than 1250
But no more than 1250. We don't want to undermine the approx. 40 year history of the season end finals.
But no more than 1250. We don't want to undermine the approx. 40 year history of the season end finals.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Its an elite exhibition, and you know it!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You saying that repeatedly will not make it a fact.
In fact, it just shows, how little you know about the history of the sport.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
What about the Davis cup then? Also representing your country there too? Is that more prestigious than a grand slam too?
Can't wait to see you logic fail explanation out of that one.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Tennis' history is filled with exhibitions! The WTF being the most elite of exhibition tournaments...
A showcase of the top 8 players of the year, where one can actually lose but still win. Certainly seems exhibitiony to me!
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
1--
Even tradition itself can evolve. Just look at the slams themselves. Before the open era, the slams were considered amateur tournaments, and the pros had their own tournaments.
When the high-profile nature of the slams was realized, they were converted to open tournaments, allowing the pros to compete there.
With the Olympics, we have something very similar taking place.
Already in 2008 Beijing, the rivalry between tennis greats such as Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal was tested for the entire world to see. Nadal and Djokovic met in the semifinals for the opportunity to play for a gold medal. Unfortunately for Federer, he was not able to reach that stage, even though he tried his best.
Now, in the 2012 London olympics, several high-profile tennis players are acting as flag-bearers for their countries (Sharapova, Nadal, Djokovic, Federer). This trend shows that tennis is now being regarded highly in the Olympics. Likewise, by endorsing the Olypmics in bearing the flag, the players are acknowledging the importance of the event, and will do everything in their means to win their events.
2--
Only top players from the semis on? Isn't that the same as it is in the slams themselves? Naturally, the lower half of the draw that wouldn't be inlcuded in the Olympics, would get elimated anyway.
It's a compromise meant to save total time required to run the tournament, but it doesn't lose much in terms of determining who is the best. The fact remains that the top 4, top 8, and even top 16 players are in the draw, and that's really all that matters...
On the other hand, the level of recognition of the Olympic matches and television coverage give them far more public impact than any Masters or WTF tournament. These televised matches are what the masses remember, and it's a modern phenomenon that is aided by the mass media coverage of the Olympics, that propels it to the top, even for tennis.
TheF1Bob
Banned
Davis Cup is a like a Champions League Knockout Group where the one who wins the most matches, win. The Olympics is a straight shoot out eliminator just like a ATP event, GS but instead getting prize fund, you get an Olympic medal to take home instead.
I do agree both are team anticipated with the Davis cup being more of a team sport just for the fact how many members can anticipate for your country. Saying that though, winning a friggin Olympic medal is better than any trophy/slam as the recognition you get from it from both your country and WORLDWIDE is something else all together now, hence why I feel it holds more prestige than any tournament the ATP has to offer and why you would rather be part of it.
So yeah, that's my take on this. Both are great but the Olympics as an event, the prestige and recognition you get from it, can't be match any where else except maybe wining a slam.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Kafelnikov says the gold medal is his biggest achievement, not his 2 slams.
Federer's most prestigious achievements are probably his 17 slams, then his doubles Gold, then wtf.
Federer's most prestigious achievements are probably his 17 slams, then his doubles Gold, then wtf.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigServer1
Legend
If it was an exhibition, it wouldn't offer ranking points.
Try as you might to make the WTF go away in terms of importance, it's the most points you get for winning an event outside the Major tournaments. 1200 for a win, 1500 points if you run the table (as I mentioned in another post, Federer ran the table in 5 of his 6 WTF wins, earning the full 1500 points).
It's been a huge part of the history of the Open Era of tennis, and even in a round robin format, if you win the event, you've played 5 consecutive matches against top 8 opponents. There isn't another event in tennis that requires the Champion to beat 4/5 top 8 opponents in a row.
FWIW, I think the Olympic Gold medal is a big deal. All the top players now seem to want it, but it hasn't always been a huge focus. After all, look at the medalists from 2004: Massu, Fish, Gonzo. Gonzo is the strongest competitor on that list and he was the bronze medalist.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Fed would have been the strongest competitor on the list if he had won any singles medals, but Berdych knocked him out like he did at Wimbledon 2010.
BigServer1
Legend
I realize Federer entered the event. It doesn't change the fact that Nicolas Massu won the Gold medal. Fed lost early at some Masters events back then too...But he was racking up Majors. I think he's put more of an emphasis on the Gold medal this year than any other year.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
He put emphasis on it every year. He cried when he lost the bronze medal play off in Sydney. Its just very difficult to perform at the Olympics, you only get 1 chance every 4 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigServer1
Legend
Sydney was 2000. He cried after every loss in 2000. I agree he's always put emphasis on it, but I think he's made it a much larger focus this year.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying the WTF is not significant. Its still an elite exhibitionary event...
Curious as to your motivation for downgrading the event. Every player rates it the number 5 event, just look at the media interviews during the last 2 wtfs. Historically its always been regarded as the top event outside the slams. Why are you downgrading it?
YellowBall77
Banned
It seems to me that olympic gold is worth quite a bit more than 750 points for the long term considering the points don't have to be defended/the event is every 4 years.
BigServer1
Legend
Again, it's not an exhibition. Hit for Haiti? That was an exhibition. Battle of the Surfaces? Exhibition. Sampras/Fed Exos...The list goes on.
The tournament featuring the top 8 players in the world that caps off the tennis year, for which 1200-1500 ranking points are awarded to the winner? Not an exhibition. I'm unsure of why you're so hell bent on trying to devalue a tournament that is widely regarded by players as the most important event in the season outside the 4 Majors.
There are so many sporting events that would fall under your definition of "exhibition"...Davis Cup, World Cup, NBA/MLB/NHL playoffs, just to name a few. Even in tennis, aside from the Davis Cup, a lucky loser from qualifying could potentially win the whole event. David Goffin made the FO 4th round even though he lost in qualifying, but by making in the main draw, he had a chance to win the entire event. Had he done that, would it make the French Open an exo, because a guy lost but still won?
WTF is definitely not an exhibition, IMO, but from a prestige perspective, if I had a choice between a WTF or an Olympic Gold, I'd take the Gold.
I think the WTF is worth all of the points that it currently gets credit for, while on the other hand, I think Olympic Gold should get zero points, even though I think Olympic Gold has more overall prestige.
But as far as significance when evaluating a player's actual career, I'd rate them to be about equal, because a lot of the Olympic prestige, isn't so much about tennis greatness, but instad, just being part of such a huge sporting event, and putting your country in the spotlight.
No exhibition event awards any ATP point. WTF is NOT an exhibition and it's part of an "ATP World Tour Season" which awards 1,500 points max.
I suggest you do some research to prevent false information.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Tournament-Landing.aspx
BigServer1
Legend
I agree. 1:1, I'd definitely take the Gold...From Fed's perspective, I'd probably rather have 6 year end titles than 1 Gold medal, but that could just be me.
LOL....I wouldn't trade 6 WTF's for a single olympic gold
Just 1:1 swap, like you said.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
That wasn't racist. It was Fish acting like an ***...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Again, the qualifying for an event is not the event itself! So that comparison is sorely lacking.
The WTF is an elite 'exhibitionary' tournament. Thats my opinion.
Its not technically an exhibition, but surely is not anything close to a slam!
Round robin format and true individual sporting event; really don't go together.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Thank goodness; at least someone here is logical...
That was my point. If its worth 750 pts, it should stay on the winner's record until the event is played (and possibly defended) again just like every other tournament where points are awarded. Since the Olympics is played only once every 4 years; that makes it 750pts*4=3000pts.
BigServer1
Legend
Man...Generalize much?
That's not what I said. For a guy who gets on people consistently for reading comprehension, you seem to have a habit of selecting reading/interpreting.
My point was this: A lucky loser who enters the main draw of a Major (or any other tournament) has an opportunity to win that event. That means that there is a chance for said lucky loser to win the entire event, even though they would have lost in the qualifying stage. If this were to happen, the player would have won the event, even though they lost. That wouldn't make the event an exhibition, but you'd still have a winner that lost.
Anyway, I think to call the WTF/YEC an exhibition, or even "exhibitiony" is unfair, and I think it's just part of an agenda to degrade the achievements of a player you don't like very much. Something tells me if Nadal had 6 YECs and Federer had an Olympic Gold singles medal, the argument would be much different (on the boards in general, not necessarily with you specifically).
Similar threads
- Poll
