What's more highly valued: Masters 1000 or an Olympic Gold Medal in Singles?

Masters 1000 or an Olympic Gold Medal in Singles?

  • Masters 1000

    Votes: 23 18.9%

  • Olympic Gold Medal in Singles

    Votes: 99 81.1%
  • Total voters
    122
Zarfot Z

Zarfot Z

Professional
Reasons for Olympic Gold Medal in Singles

-the 750 points won don't have to be defended, hence making their worth higher.
-Olympics only come around every 4 years, while are plenty of Masters 1000 tournaments every year.
-patriotic value. Potential to become a national hero.

Reasons for Masters 1000

-1000 points > 750 points
-much more prize money (over $500,000 compared to a measly $25,000)

What's your opinion? In the end, I think it comes down to the ranking. The top players would obviously cherish the Olympic Gold more. They've literally only got one or two chances at winning it, whereas Masters 1000s are up for grabs all year long.

On the other hand, you can understand how someone outside of the top 100 and struggling financially would choose differently.
 
Last edited:
I'll re-post what I said in another thread:

To those who talk down the OG - we're all our entitled to our views as to its relative value, but it seems pretty clear to me that the event is valued very highly by today's players:

Djokovic said it was one of his 2 top priorities for the year. Delpo and Fed half killed themselves and then cried together - over a semi-final. Murray bounced round the court like Tigger and was again in tears; after a semi-final. Gasquet was jumping around like a demented jumping thing (was going to say frog, but though I'd best not) during a doubles semi-final (yeah, that Gasquet). Murray was almost in tears again after winning a mixed doubles match. Delpo and Nole will drag their disappointed asses on to court 1 today to give everything again and will celebrate like a madman for essentially being the best semi-final loser. I could go on, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.

When was the last time anyone cried after an MS semi?

PS Your 1st point is a red herring mate. The OG points appear under the 'best other' events and drop off after 52 weeks like every other ATP point. I don't see how they are in any way special or of higher value than any other ATP point.
 
Last edited:
batz said:
When was the last time anyone cried after an MS semi?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about a MS semi-final, but I think Nadal cried at the final of Monte Carlo 2010, after beating Verdasco in the final, dropping only 14 games in the entire tournament (a record) and winning a 6th consecutive Monte Carlo title. It was clear that the title meant a lot to him after a long title drought. I don't think Nadal cried after winning any of his 2008 Olympics matches though, so perhaps the Olympics meant less to Nadal (though he still won the gold medal). I guess it varies for different players.

Also, I can't see the OP's post, because he/she is on my ignore list, but I can see the thread title, so don't know what else he/she has brought up.
 
The only way I could see a player valuing any of the masters series events over the Olympics would be if it was theri home tournament , i.e. an Italian player with Rome, a Canadian player with Montreal/Toronto etc.

Otherwise it's very hard to imagine that any player would rather win a masters series title than an Olympic Gold Medal at the greatest sporting event on the planet.

Take Massu for instance. As we know he was a double gold medalist at Athens in 2004, plus he was the runner-up at the Madrid Masters in 2003. His exploits at Athens made him a national hero. I doubt he would have received quite the same reception back in Chile had he won that 2003 Madrid final instead.

Many players probably forget how many masters series titles they won during their career once they have retired. That was definately the case with Sampras at least.
 
Last edited:
batz said:
I'll re-post what I said in another thread:

To those who talk down the OG - we're all our entitled to our views as to its relative value, but it seems pretty clear to me that the event is valued very highly by today's players:

Djokovic said it was one of his 2 top priorities for the year. Delpo and Fed half killed themselves and then cried together - over a semi-final. Murray bounced round the court like Tigger and was again in tears; after a semi-final. Gasquet was jumping around like a demented jumping thing (was going to say frog, but though I'd best not) during a doubles semi-final (yeah, that Gasquet). Murray was almost in tears again after winning a mixed doubles match. Delpo and Nole will drag their disappointed asses on to court 1 today to give everything again and will celebrate like a madman for essentially being the best semi-final loser. I could go on, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.

When was the last time anyone cried after an MS semi?
Click to expand...

The top players would obviously cherish the Olympic Gold more - they've literally only got one or two chances at winning it, whereas Masters 1000s are up for grabs all year long. Not to mention that Federer desperately wants to bag the gold and acquire the Career Golden Slam.

Maybe I should have rephrased the question better: for anyone outside of the elite tier - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Del Potro (possibly), what would be their preference?
 
Last edited:
6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
I'm not sure about a MS semi-final, but I think Nadal cried at the final of Monte Carlo 2010, after beating Verdasco in the final, dropping only 14 games in the entire tournament (a record) and winning a 6th consecutive Monte Carlo title. It was clear that the title meant a lot to him after a long title drought. I don't think Nadal cried after winning any of his 2008 Olympics matches though, so perhaps the Olympics meant less to Nadal (though he still won the gold medal). I guess it varies for different players.

Also, I can't see the OP's post, because he/she is on my ignore list, but I can see the thread title, so don't know what else he/she has brought up.
Click to expand...

So not after a semi then? Thought not.
 
Zarfot Z said:
The top players would obviously cherish the Olympic Gold more - they've literally only got one or two chances at winning it, whereas Masters 1000s are up for grabs all year long. Not to mention that Federer desperately wants to bag the gold to acquire the Career Golden Slam.

Maybe I should have rephrased the question better: for anyone outside of the elite tier - Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Del Potro (possibly), what would be their preference?
Click to expand...

Again mate, look at Gasquet yesterday - going feckin mental he was; in a doubles semi.:shock:

It's not just the top guys.
 
Definitely the gold medal. You could see del Potro crying after he lost his match to Fed, and I think Fed had some tears too. Judging by what the players have said (and shown on court), olympic gold means a lot more to them. The ranking points points earned by masters1000/olympics isn't a good indicator of importance value imo.

Besides, you are winning a medal for your country in an event that happens only every 4 years. How can that NOT be important?
 
Sim said:
Definitely the gold medal. You could see del Potro crying after he lost his match to Fed, and I think Fed had some tears too. Judging by what the players have said (and shown on court), olympic gold means a lot more to them. The ranking points points earned by masters1000/olympics isn't a good indicator of importance value imo.

Besides, you are winning a medal for your country in an event that happens only every 4 years. How can that NOT be important?
Click to expand...

True. If I was ranked somewhere in the top 50 I'd probably pick Olympic gold over Masters 1000.

But you can understand how someone outside of the top 100 and struggling financially would choose differently.
 
Zarfot Z said:
True. If I was ranked somewhere in the top 50 I'd probably pick Olympic gold over Masters 1000.

But you can understand how someone outside of the top 100 and struggling financially would choose differently.
Click to expand...

You don't get to play OG singles in you're ranked outside the top 100. Moreover, you probably don't play MS if you're outside the top 100 (maybe IW or Miami if you qualify).
 
Last edited:
Zarfot Z said:
True. If I was ranked somewhere in the top 50 I'd probably pick Olympic gold over Masters 1000.

But you can understand how someone outside of the top 100 and struggling financially would choose differently.
Click to expand...

If a lower ranked player won the Olympic gold medal, the sponsorship and endorsement money they would receive in their home country following that success would probably top the prize money they would earn for winning a masters series tournament.

I would bet that Massu received more money from endorsements in Chile after his 2004 Athens heroics, than he would have done had he beaten Ferrero in the 2003 Madrid final instead.
 
6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
Also I think Verdasco cried after beating Nadal in Madrid this year, which was only a third round match.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he'd probably have cried if Rafa had let him win at tiddlywinks too, such is the level of ownage. Verdasco's tears weren't about the event - they were about beating Rafa.
 
batz said:
You don't get to play OG singles in you're ranked outside the top 100. Moreover, you probably don't play MS if you're outside the top 100 (maybe IW or Miami if you qualify).
Click to expand...

Hypothetically, we'll assume that they get wildcard entries into both tournaments.
 
Zarfot Z said:
Hypothetically, we'll assume that they get wildcard entries into both tournaments.
Click to expand...

OK mate - then maybe you should re-phrase your question as "Would a skint guy from outside the top 100 rather have a cheque for half a million dollars plus other resultant revenues from an MS win or the national glory and resultant revenues from an OG win?"


That's quite a different question to the one you posed ;) :)
 
batz said:
OK mate - then maybe you should re-phrase your question as "Would a skint guy from outside the top 100 rather have a cheque for half a million dollars plus other resultant revenues from an MS win or the national glory and resultant revenues from an OG win?"


That's quite a different question to the one you posed ;) :)
Click to expand...

Should have made myself more clear - I'll go back and edit the post now. Thanks.
 
6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
Also I think Verdasco cried after beating Nadal in Madrid this year, which was only a third round match.
Click to expand...

Haha, Verdasco beat Nadal!!!!!

Sorry, bro, that is funny ****.

Did I mention Verdasco never beat Federer? Also a record.

And, btw, Masters a worth way more than Olympics - and it's not even close. Who cares what the players think, the tournie organizers decide how important a tournament is, and Masters get more ranking points, so obviously, Masters are more important.
 
At a financial level, an Olympic champion in a nation of a reasonable economic size would be extremely valuable in terms of commercial opportunities.

Its also no tie break final set and five set final and this makes it more difficult than a Masters regardless of the points.
 
masters 1000 is just a simple tournament, it doesn't mean much to the outside world of tennis. however, if a player wins gold in the olympics tennis singles. They become more well known because of the larger audience. And their countrymen will love them for it as well
 
No one is ever going to be measured on winning OG. It may be a bonus, but it is something that is too rare of an occurance and only recently implemented to pro players... Yes, maybe in that regard it is more "special" but the facts still remain careers are looked at by majors, masters and wtf, if you happen to have OG all the better but it is not glaring at the forefront. Look at both the mens/womens and it is kind of a joke who has and who has not won OG, that should speak for itself IMO. Too add that the draws and the selection of players entered and not entered is a black mark on the entire process. Seems it should be a 2 week tourney and double the field to make sure it is truly best of best, and no one is left outside looking in be cause of Olympic qualifications to enter.
 
Last edited:
I think Olympic Gold is more of a bragging right. And since it occurs so rare, that is why players are eager to chase after it. But overall if you look at a player's accomplishments, I would say having a major is much more important than winning Olympic singles gold. One example is that of Marc Rosset who won the Olympic Singles Gold for Switzerland. However he is hardly recognized in mainstream tennis.
 
tank_job said:
Haha, Verdasco beat Nadal!!!!!

Sorry, bro, that is funny ****.

Did I mention Verdasco never beat Federer? Also a record.

And, btw, Masters a worth way more than Olympics - and it's not even close. Who cares what the players think, the tournie organizers decide how important a tournament is, and Masters get more ranking points, so obviously, Masters are more important.
Click to expand...
Thats why the masters tourney are not going to bend on scheduling for an abortion of a "tournament" that is the olympics.
 
batz said:
I'll re-post what I said in another thread:

To those who talk down the OG - we're all our entitled to our views as to its relative value, but it seems pretty clear to me that the event is valued very highly by today's players:

Djokovic said it was one of his 2 top priorities for the year. Delpo and Fed half killed themselves and then cried together - over a semi-final. Murray bounced round the court like Tigger and was again in tears; after a semi-final. Gasquet was jumping around like a demented jumping thing (was going to say frog, but though I'd best not) during a doubles semi-final (yeah, that Gasquet). Murray was almost in tears again after winning a mixed doubles match. Delpo and Nole will drag their disappointed asses on to court 1 today to give everything again and will celebrate like a madman for essentially being the best semi-final loser. I could go on, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying.

When was the last time anyone cried after an MS semi?

PS Your 1st point is a red herring mate. The OG points appear under the 'best other' events and drop off after 52 weeks like every other ATP point. I don't see how they are in any way special or of higher value than any other ATP point.
Click to expand...


Winning an Olympic Gold is more for national points with your home country more than prestige and tournament value. It's very nice to win one, but by no means is it any indicator of greatness. That is why people tend to devalue the Olympics so much; it's an odd tournament where somehow lower level players find the strength to beat higher ranked players, etc. etc. that only occurs once every four years.
 
olympic gold. too many masters series events. field at the olympics is just as strong as a masters

winnin olympic gold doesnt make u a great player, but then neither does winnin a single masters series title

offer players one or the other and i doubt many would knock back olympic gold
 
Slams >>>>> Olympic singles Gold > Davis Cup > WTF >>>>>> Masters 1000 >>>>> other tournaments IMO.
 
TeflonTom said:
olympic gold. too many masters series events. field at the olympics is just as strong as a masters

winnin olympic gold doesnt make u a great player, but then neither does winnin a single masters series title

offer players one or the other and i doubt many would knock back olympic gold
Click to expand...

Can we banned for outright lying?
 
TeflonTom said:
well it is

murrays path for cincy 2008

querrey - tursunov - ancient moya - karlovic - djok

murrays path for london 2012

wawrinka - nieminen - baghdatis - almagro - djok - fed

olympics = harder players n one extra match
Click to expand...


Yes let me handpick tournaments just for giggles and throw it up in my legendary strawman argument.
 
NamRanger said:
Yes let me handpick tournaments just for giggles and throw it up in my legendary strawman argument.
Click to expand...
just plucked the first masters tourney muzz won. wanna try his second? madrid 2008

bolelli - cilic - mugfils - fed - simon

even worse

sure there's tougher masters n easier olympics, but the top players r all at the olympics n u have 2 play an extra match. so most of the time its gunna be tougher
 
TeflonTom said:
just plucked the first masters tourney muzz won. wanna try his second? madrid 2008

bolelli - cilic - mugfils - fed - simon

even worse

sure there's tougher masters n easier olympics, but the top players r all at the olympics n u have 2 play an extra match. so most of the time its gunna be tougher
Click to expand...


*Continues strawman argument*


Here, let me do one for you.

Toronto 2010

Malisse (Dangerous first round opponent), Monfils (top 15 at the time), Nalbandian (another dangerous player), Nadal, Federer.

Way harder than the Olympics IMO. Beating Nadal and Federer at the same tournament? Pretty good. Especially when he played three high quality players already.


Or we can do other players and actually demonstrate more validity to my argument that you're doing nothing but throwing strawman arguments (I'll use Federer)


Miami 2005

Rochus, Zabaleta, Ancic (top 20), Tim Henman (ranked 6), Andre Agassi, Nadal


Cincinnati 2009

Acasuso, Ferrer, Hewitt, Murray, Djokovic



We can spin in circles all we want. You're argument is bad and you know it.
 
TeflonTom said:
missed the last line of my post brah. but nice try
Click to expand...


"Ignores the fact that NamRanger called him out on his strawman"


- Classic TW Troll that was slayed by the mighty NamRanger.


Oh, and please don't say things like brah. It only makes you look like the typical college frat boy poster trying to look cool.
 
Last edited:
TeflonTom said:
its not a strawman if it aint the basis of my argument. was just illustrative example brah

ur not very good at this
Click to expand...


It is a strawman; you brought up weak examples in order to prove your point. That's exactly what a strawman argument is. You're attacking my argument with over simplified/weak/hand picked evidence. Hullo? Ever taking a basic 101 logic course? You've cherry picked and oversimplified my arguments in order to prove your point. Both a strawman and cherry picking. Not only did you oversimplify the difficulty of a Masters Tournament, you also tried to prop the Olympics up like it is some massively more difficult tournament to win. It's not; in fact, I'd argue the Olympics is an easier tournament to win simply because it's subject to more luck and form than any other tournament in the world. The only reason why it has significance is that it is related to national pride; that's it.
 
Last edited:
The OP should have another option for OG = Masters 1000.

While I think the OG is bigger than some MS like Shanghai or Monte Carlo, but below others like IW or Miami.
 
Fed values the singles gold equal to Wimbledon (above the other slams)
 
TheNatural said:
Fed values the singles gold equal to Wimbledon (above the other slams)
Click to expand...

images
 
Nothing against Nadal, but I sort of hope that he doesn't win the World Tour Finals, so that Agassi can remain the only player to have won each of the modern day 'super seven' events in tennis, the 4 grand slams, the World Tour Finals, the Olympics and the Davis Cup.

It's nice to see as many different players as possible having various different milestones and unique achievements to their name.
 
In my opinion, the Olympic Games are more important for athletes in general than an achievement in any specific sport. As a professional athlete, it means a lot to be winning medals for your country and competing with the very best athletes from around the world. When it comes to career evaluations, tennis-specific tournaments and titles mean more than a medal.

Olympics means more to the unified sports world. Tennis career evaluations should more heavily weigh tennis-specific achievements.
 
Times have changed. OG has increased tremendously in value in the last four years. It's a close fifth after the slams, substantially ahead of the YEC.
 
There were times when the top players skipped the Olympics. I think the feeling was that for sports like track&field, gymnastics, swimming, etc, that the Olympics were the pinnacle but not so for tennis players. While I still don't believe the Olympics are the pinnacle for tennis players it has gained importance, and I think in the future the ranking points will raise to reflect that. I think it's good tennis is in the Olympics as it showcases the sport well. This year 8 countries chose tennis players to carry their flags in the opening ceremonies, which shows how big tennis is in some countries (I won't hold my breath for the day an American tennis player carries the flag though). I think if you asked any of this year's Gold medal winners if they value the Olympics above a Masters they would say yes.
 
Last edited:
winstonplum said:
Times have changed. OG has increased tremendously in value in the last four years. It's a close fifth after the slams, substantially ahead of the YEC.
Click to expand...

Oh wot, cuz flavor-of-the-month boy Murray just won it?

Get your head out of your arse, Olympic gold in tennis is utterly worthless, always has been and always will be, and Murray will never win a slam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sport
  • Poll Poll
Are WTF and Olympic Gold in singles equallly relevant?
2
Replies
90
Views
3K
Deleted member 805385
D
Sorana fan
Is an olympic gold medal more prestigious than wtf?
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
21K
Rovesciarete
Rovesciarete
BGod
  • Poll Poll
The Value of an Olympic Gold Medal?
2
Replies
72
Views
3K
Bartelby
Bartelby
T
The final and maximum points status of an Olympic Gold
3 4 5
Replies
213
Views
17K
SLD76
SLD76
Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL] In which watertight compartment would you put the Olympic gold in tennis?
Replies
42
Views
708
messiahrobins
M
Back
Top