The final and maximum points status of an Olympic Gold

[roberttennis54]

I sorta agree with what you're saying, but I still think it boils down to the same basic reality, in that slam counts just weren't that overly important until the Sampras era.

Of course McEnroe and his contemporaries/predecessors, understood that Australia was a slam, but like you point out, the only way it would have a MAJOR significance to them was if they were going for a true Calendar Year Grand Slam, which was easy for them to gauge, since Australia, back then, was the last slam of the year.

I also agree that the Olympics will continue to gain more prestige as time goes on. But clearly, it's still a clear step below an actual slam. Whether it ever rises to be the exact same level of a slam, or even greater, remains to be seen. But I'm hard pressed to think of any pro player to this point in time...active or otherwise....who's resume would look better if they dropped one of their actual Slam Titles, to replace it with an Olympic Gold instead. But that's simply my opinion.

Last comment I have, is just a general one...but a BIG problem/concern I have with the Olympics is that you never know when the IOC may just simply decide to drop it again. Absolutely NO WAY to predict the weird thinking that goes on within the IOC, so if out of the blue, they decide to drop tennis again, as an Olympic sport, where does that leave things overall, in terms of it's prestige? When trying to compare individual's personal careers over time, it's already a bit of a mess, since Laver and Sampras, for instance, clearly didn't think it was worth much, while guys like Agassi, Fed, and Rafa, clearly do.

It's a very good point that slams were not as important. However, the Masters Cup(whatever you want to call it) was huge. In many ways that was the fourth slam during then. Obviously it was indoors, but surfaces keep changing in tennis. I think sometimes adding on the masters cup to the Mcenroe, Borg, Connors generation gives a more accurate indication of what their slam total would have been in modern times.

You are right about the Olympics it could be randomly dropped at any point.

Tennis is a mess of a sport historically. The amateur/professional split. The change in racquets, strings, surfaces and even priorities makes a true greatest of time virtually impossible to judge.

 

[roberttennis54]

I meant slam totals sorry not the slam count. It's a bit like in football people call the matches South American sides had with top European sides friendlies. I hope I don't see the time when the young kids dismiss the current test rugby as meaningless friendlies going only by world cups and five nations.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I meant slam totals sorry not the slam count. It's a bit like in football people call the matches South American sides had with top European sides friendlies. I hope I don't see the time when the young kids dismiss the current test rugby as meaningless friendlies going only by world cups and five nations.

Actually, some count slams + Masters (*the* Masters) as "majors", while others only count slams as majors, so it's a bit fuzzy, but yeah, the YEC is definitely up there among the biggest tournaments, and it sure was much bigger than AO (and even maybe FO in the minds of some, although that is debatable and I wouldn't go down that route, personally) for several decades.

 

[TennisBatman]

No. For all-time greats, olympics is just a footnote in their resume, really. Sampras never bothered to show, and frankly, no-one ever says anything about it or points at the olympics as a hole in his resume, simply because they aren't. Roland Garros is, though, and this is the thing everyone mentions (ie agrees on) when they talk of Sampras' "failings" (just like Wimbledon is for Lendl).

As for McEnroe, you'll notice that nobody ever mentions the AO as far as he is concerned (same thing for Borg). Simply because, although it's a slam and arguably the fourth (or maybe even third, depending on who you ask) biggest tournament of the year *now*, it just wasn't relevant in their day. And people know that. For Mac, the slam he lacks is RG. For Borg, it's the USO. Never AO for any of them.

As far as some players (ie the current crop of top players) wanting to win gold, that is a different prospect altogether. They *do* want it, and it's the only time this has happened. Which shows that, in time, the olympics *may* also become something big in tennis (should the current trend continue for a few decades, I guess). But right now, it isn't--not in the eyes of the tennis "establishment", anyway (Nadal fans ala NSK is another matter).

Mostly agree here regarding the growth of certain tournaments in importance, such as the AO.

However, I think you may be surprised in how quickly Olympic tennis can explode in importance, especially with the help of mass media, internet broadcasting, and spirited participation from the top players.

If key matches take place in the Olympics (for example, a Federer-Nadal final), it won't take more than a decade for Olympic tennis to skyrocket in importance. If this final happens, a lot will be at stake. Nadal would be playing to achieve an unprecedented 2 consecutive gold medals, and Federer would be playing to redeem himself from failing to medal the previous times.

On the other hand, if some dark horse wins the gold medal, then Olympic tennis would suddenly look more like it was in 2004, but this seems very unlikely judging by the level of commitment from the top players.

 

[TennisBatman]

You are right about the Olympics it could be randomly dropped at any point.

I think the chance that this would happen is almost nonexistent.

The Olympic committee has over 100 years of history to guide their decisions, and by now they should have realized that deciding to drop tennis nearly 100 years ago was a major mistake on their part.

Tennis indeed has a jam-packed year-round schedule that demands energy and adds risk, but that certainly should not get in the way of both parties working together to make the sport a part of the games.

 

[TennisBatman]

I agree with that. It's not a make or break career achievement.

1988 Miloslav Mečíř (TCH)
1992 Marc Rosset (SUI)
1996 Andre Agassi (USA)
2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
2004 Nicolas Massú (CHI)
2008 Rafael Nadal (ESP)

Those are your singles Gold medal winners in the Open Era. It's huge for your country, but not having one doesn't take away from a career.

Fully agree here, but Nadal's situation this year is unique in that he has an opportunity to extend his winning streak to 2 SOGs.

In the context of comparing Federer's achievements to Nadal's, the possibility of Nadal winning a 2nd SOG would go very far in closing the gap between him and Federer, if it were to come to fruition.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Fully agree here, but Nadal's situation this year is unique in that he has an opportunity to extend his winning streak to 2 SOGs.

In the context of comparing Federer's achievements to Nadal's, the possibility of Nadal winning a 2nd SOG would go very far in closing the gap between him and Federer, if it were to come to fruition.

Would it make up for the gap in weeks at #1? Or the fact that Fed has more slams at AO/USO/Wimbledon than Nadal? Or the WTF discrepancy?

I think the issue here, and I may be part of it somewhat, is people belittling the Olympic gold, so the other side has to go overboard when describing what it means, and then you have people going overboard w/ how important it is, so that makes the other side wanna undercut it even more.

OG is a great accomplishment. But in the context of all time tennis achievements, it is not up there with the slams and shouldn't be int eh same conversation at this point. There's simply not enough history of tennis at the OG to say it's on the level of a slam or even close to it in the context of tennis history.

 

[drakulie]

For those arguing about the AO not being considered so important, you could go ahead and add the FO as well. For many years, the FO was an afterthought (same as AO). In fact, there was a time attendance there was so bad, the organizers gave away tickets so that TV viewers would see the stadium/courts full of "fans", and there were plans to move venues.

More-over, and as proof of the FO being thought of as an afterthought, 50% of the top 10 players in the world didn't play the first year Borg won it, and 40% the second year. 1974 and 75 respectively, and instead opted to play other tournaments. In addition, many more top players also did not attend.

To add, in 68, 70, 72, and 74-78 many of the best players in the world were either not allowed to play, or opted not to play in order to play other circuits (Grand Prix being one of them).

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

A lucky loser (Vandeweghe) is in the finals of Stanford. Another stick in the side of the whole "WTF is an exho since you can lose and still win the tournament" argument.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I think, that this interview might be interesting for some people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4Zif793R0&feature=relmfu

 

[MG1]

Draw for Olympic Tennis Event to be held on Thursday 26 July

The ITF announced that the draw for the 2012 Olympic Tennis Event will be held at the All England Club, Wimbledon on Thursday 26 July at 11:00 in the Debenture Holders Lounge. Seeds for the draw will be based on the latest ATP and WTA world rankings of Monday 23 July. Any accredited media for the London 2012 Olympics are able to attend the draw.

The 2012 Olympic Tennis Event will be held at the All England Club, Wimbledon from 28 July until 5 August. Forty-five countries will compete in this year’s event. Sixty-four players will contest the men’s and women’s singles, with 16 players seeded in both events. Thirty-two teams will contest the men’s and women’s doubles, with eight teams seeded in both events. The draw for the 16-team mixed doubles event will be held during the Olympic Tennis Event on Tuesday 31 July.

If there are two players or doubles teams from the same country, they will be drawn in opposite halves of the draw. If there are three or more players/teams from the same country, they will be drawn in different quarters of the draw.

Tennis was a part of the first modern Olympic Games in 1896. The first woman to win an Olympic medal in any sport was tennis player Charlotte Cooper (GBR) at the 1900 Olympic Games in Paris. After the 1924 Paris Games, tennis withdrew from the Olympics but returned as demonstration events in 1968 and 1984 and as a full medal sport at 1988 Seoul. The All England Club previously staged the Olympic Tennis Event in 1908 at its old site in Worple Road. This is the first event to be held on grass since tennis’s return as a full-medal sport.

All the latest news from the Olympic Tennis Event can be found on the ITF’s official Olympic websites in English and Spanish: www.itftennis.com/olympics and www.itftennis.com/olimpiadas

 

[SLD76]

Personally, I think its joke that pros ( of any sport ) are allowed to participate in the olympics at all.


as far as I know they still have amateur boxers in the olympics.

when I first heard that graf was playing the olympics my first thought was "wtf..why are they letting pros play..get compensation already, let the amateurs get the glory"

imo, juniors and first year tour players should be allowed in the olympics, period.

I also dont agree with nba players..i think college kids (usa) and amateurs abroad only should be in the games.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Personally, I think its joke that pros ( of any sport ) are allowed to participate in the olympics at all.


as far as I know they still have amateur boxers in the olympics.

when I first heard that graf was playing the olympics my first thought was "wtf..why are they letting pros play..get compensation already, let the amateurs get the glory"

imo, juniors and first year tour players should be allowed in the olympics, period.

I also dont agree with nba players..i think college kids (usa) and amateurs abroad only should be in the games.

Too much money in the Olympics now for that to happen.

The Pro-boxers are going to participate, so that is changing (for the worse methinks) too.

 

[SLD76]

Too much money in the Olympics now for that to happen.

The Pro-boxers are going to participate, so that is changing (for the worse methinks) too.

great..now the olympics matches will be fixed too.