difference between illustratin n provin. do u kno what an example is?
cant really have a discussion with u if u dont understand what ur talkin about
What's more highly valued: Masters 1000 or an Olympic Gold Medal in Singles?
- Thread starter Zarfot Z
- Start date
cant really have a discussion with u if u dont understand what ur talkin about
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
The value of the Olympic Gold is subjective. To some it means everything and to others it means nothing.
Even in his best years, Roddick did not bother much with the olympics yet went all out for a Davis Cup title.
According to Hewitt,winning Davis Cup was much more meaningful to him than winning Wimbledon.
It depends on the player. One thing is for sure, the Olympic Gold does not define greatness. You have the legendary Pete Sampras who was never interested in the medal. Also, guys like Laver, Borg, and Lendl never even had the chance to play at Olympics.
Even in his best years, Roddick did not bother much with the olympics yet went all out for a Davis Cup title.
According to Hewitt,winning Davis Cup was much more meaningful to him than winning Wimbledon.
It depends on the player. One thing is for sure, the Olympic Gold does not define greatness. You have the legendary Pete Sampras who was never interested in the medal. Also, guys like Laver, Borg, and Lendl never even had the chance to play at Olympics.
JustBob
Hall of Fame
Agassi
I reflected around 1999 how amazing that agassi was one of only a few to have won pretty much everything. He was amazingly versatile. He didnt win the grand slam cup which was a much deeper tournament than the olympics in that era but he got close in 98 agaist rios.
I reflected around 1999 how amazing that agassi was one of only a few to have won pretty much everything. He was amazingly versatile. He didnt win the grand slam cup which was a much deeper tournament than the olympics in that era but he got close in 98 agaist rios.
Feather
Legend
If so why is it just a 750 point event while masters carry 1000 points ?
Tafmatch
Rookie
Olympic ATP points aren't that important to the players. The emotional value of winnig the Olympics is so much higher than winning a masters event, it's not even close.
Fedwimby86
New User
http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/sampras-tennis-at-the-olympics-should-be-a-team-event/
He called it an "exhibition" hahaha. But, it's only gained prestige after Rafa won it and everyone using it against Federer not able to obtain the golden slam. Guess he lost his chance at that, but great to see he's content with his singles silver and doubles gold.
He called it an "exhibition" hahaha. But, it's only gained prestige after Rafa won it and everyone using it against Federer not able to obtain the golden slam. Guess he lost his chance at that, but great to see he's content with his singles silver and doubles gold.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Good question. It would be interesting to know what the ATP's thinking on that is. Maybe it's because they can't control the intake to an Olympics like they can with the Masters as you have to be nominated by your country's Olympic association to take part whereas ATP rules state that all but one of the Masters are automatically mandatory for all the top players.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
An Olympic Medal (Gold Silver OR Bronze) by far.
But a GS over an Olympic Gold medal, not by far though.
But a GS over an Olympic Gold medal, not by far though.
1) You simplified my arguments attempting to make them weak.
2) You brought up a very weak example that was hand picked in order to make the Olympic draw much stronger.
Classic TW troll attempt.
Winning one of the more prestigious masters is much better for your career than winning an Olympic Gold. People recognize Massu as a national hero in his own country, yes, but he is by far not considered a good player. Canas on the other hand, won a Masters title and no Olympic medal and was considered actually a pretty damn good player. You can apply this to pretty much everyone that has won major master tournaments but not the Olympics.
Last edited:
syke
Professional
you must have been brainwashed by the constant repeats of the Nike Greatness ads on Tv... Lol...
...Greatness is not in one special place, and it's not in one special person. Greatness is wherever somebody is trying to find it...
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
It would be interesting to see the poll results of which is more valued between a ms1000 singles title and a doubles gold medal.
That's like asking which fruit taste better between an apple and an orange.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
This is a stupid poll. Only butthurt ****s would even think of voting for a Masters 1000 and as the poll results show even most of them have refrained from such extreme stupidity in this case. A better poll would be between a WTF title, a Davis Cup title, and an Olympic singles gold. I would say all 3 of those are quite close in value.
TennisTalkGuru
Banned
WTF > O.G > M1000 > Davis cup
mellowyellow
Legend
I ask all how proud of your govt are you? I would bet all except blind loyalist think their govt is doing the common man any good, why put so much stock into a nationalistic occasion, one that has broadened the qualifications for playing for a country. Really, where did Murray train? How many top 100 were not in the olympics? Gtfoh, take a IW, Miami, Canada, Cincy any day of any year. Its only meaningful now because 3 guys will likely have the career slam when this gen is done, so they want a distinction, maybe thinking much later down the history timeline it will be something. Competetively it is the same joke that Davis/
FedCup is.
FedCup is.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
That is about right.
cocarrot
Rookie
19 people here are struggling financially.. :lol:
mellowyellow
Legend
Originally Posted by Zarfot Z
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.
Yes, and in the grand scheme of things, if one never wins a masters and wins a gold or silver that might be true, but to a person who knows what the draws at masters are like and who is definately going to be there a masters is a better accomplishment. How many of the top 50 were not in the olympics? I know 3 of the top of my head that were in DC on the weekend alone. We know 2 others were "injured" or afraid of needles... We have at this point a who is who of Olympic golds, and if Andy Dementieva never wins a slam he will be another that fills that side of the category.
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.
Yes, and in the grand scheme of things, if one never wins a masters and wins a gold or silver that might be true, but to a person who knows what the draws at masters are like and who is definately going to be there a masters is a better accomplishment. How many of the top 50 were not in the olympics? I know 3 of the top of my head that were in DC on the weekend alone. We know 2 others were "injured" or afraid of needles... We have at this point a who is who of Olympic golds, and if Andy Dementieva never wins a slam he will be another that fills that side of the category.
RogerFederer4life
Banned
If the Roger federer does not win it, it is not important, Federer decides whats important, besides Roger was too tired so he let murray win
mellowyellow
Legend
This is exactly whats wrong, the player cant say "this 500" is so important, more so than amasters, how does that fly here? 2 olympics ago no one really cared... 2 from now will be the same story.
Talker
Hall of Fame
It's more of a personal thing. I didn't watch the one in 2008, just wasn't interested.
But seeing how the players reacted, it's important to them.
It won't help the resume much when the career is over.
Overall, it's great to have a gold medal, even if it's in curling. LMAO...
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, if Federer fans vote for option #1, your conclusion is, that they are butthurt.
If they vote for option #2, they are butthurt, despite voting for it.
Got it. You are a joke.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
IMO a Masters 1000 confers more ranking points and money so it is more useful and lucrative to a player's career. But an Olympic singles gold medal confers more prestige because it is won for your country as much as yourself, the opportunity to win one occurs only every 4 years and is therefore won by so few!
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
I think that, as a professional athlete, it means more to have won an Olympic Gold. But as a professional tennis player, the MS1000, WTF, and slams mean more. And that's because OG is not exclusive to tennis and are equal across all sports and events. An Olympic Gold is Olympic Gold no matter where it's won.
Over a tennis career, tennis-specific achievements should take precedence over athletic achievements, I believe.
kragster
Hall of Fame
I think we need to define highly valued by whom because there is the player's own perspective on how much he/she values the event vs what the world says.
Here's what I think.
From a players perspective if you could pick only 1, you would probably pick OG. It's only 250 pts less and the sense of being a part of something larger than yourself is something every athlete wants. Also as with anything in life, the rarer something is, the more it is valued. Having 9 masters events every yr vs 1 OG every 4 yrs. Of course there could be many exceptions to this rule such as you already have an OG or you are trying to break the Masters record etc. By and large though, I think most players would pick the OG.
From the fans perspective, I think it depends who it is. Someone like Federer who already has achieved everything else there is, neither an OG nor a Masters really boosts his resume. The same for Nadal. At that level of accomplishment, only slams and perhaps weeks at no 1 can boost the resume.
For someone who has not accomplished much though, it depends on what they have. If they have a Masters, an OG in my mind would make them look better. If they have an OG a masters would make them look better.
At the end of the day though, I think that given the rising popularity, its only a matter of time before the OG is at least 1k points.
Here's what I think.
From a players perspective if you could pick only 1, you would probably pick OG. It's only 250 pts less and the sense of being a part of something larger than yourself is something every athlete wants. Also as with anything in life, the rarer something is, the more it is valued. Having 9 masters events every yr vs 1 OG every 4 yrs. Of course there could be many exceptions to this rule such as you already have an OG or you are trying to break the Masters record etc. By and large though, I think most players would pick the OG.
From the fans perspective, I think it depends who it is. Someone like Federer who already has achieved everything else there is, neither an OG nor a Masters really boosts his resume. The same for Nadal. At that level of accomplishment, only slams and perhaps weeks at no 1 can boost the resume.
For someone who has not accomplished much though, it depends on what they have. If they have a Masters, an OG in my mind would make them look better. If they have an OG a masters would make them look better.
At the end of the day though, I think that given the rising popularity, its only a matter of time before the OG is at least 1k points.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
From a player's perspective it is a lot more important to earn his living, than to feel something about anything. What you say might be true only for the tennis players, that have earned enough cash, to have something to choose from. Otherwise it is not a contest at all. An M1000 tournament every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Whether we, as fans, think, that Olympics are more important than a M1000 tournament, is another matter.
Not to take anything away from Murray, but Usain Bolt's Gold means alot more to him than Murray. If Murray doesn't win the Gold, he can makeup for it by winning the slam which would be even more bigger. For Bolt not winning the Gold, there's no other event outside of the Olympics that can makeup for it.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Except for Cycling. And Basketball. And Football.
No way would you have posted your usual fact free guff if Roger had won it.
batz
G.O.A.T.
And you know this how? Have you invented the 'means-more-to-meter'? Andre Agassi says his proudest achievement is his Olympic Gold Medal. After he won, Rafa texted Murray and told him he'd just won the hardest tournament to win (Rafa's views, not mine) You can tell them both they're wrong if you like.
Last edited:
Andre's legacy still stands as it is had he didn't win the Gold. It doesn't make him any lesser as a tennis player, as it didn't have any effect on Sampras. However, for Bolt is a completely different story. Him winning at the Olympic means fame and wealth. With no medal, he's nothing.
batz
G.O.A.T.
Journo Bodo isn't in any doubt:
Whatever the case, unless things change drastically there will be no reason to debate the validity or significance of the Olympic tennis event from now on. No, an Olympic gold is not the equivalent of winning a Grand Slam; it's more prestigious, in the broadest sense, but also less significant in the judgement of those who know best, the tennis community. Whatever the case, it sure as hail means a lot more than winning any Masters 1000 or Premium Mandatory event.
http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld...lpo-tsongasnishikori-down-pova-agneiszka.html
Whatever the case, unless things change drastically there will be no reason to debate the validity or significance of the Olympic tennis event from now on. No, an Olympic gold is not the equivalent of winning a Grand Slam; it's more prestigious, in the broadest sense, but also less significant in the judgement of those who know best, the tennis community. Whatever the case, it sure as hail means a lot more than winning any Masters 1000 or Premium Mandatory event.
http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld...lpo-tsongasnishikori-down-pova-agneiszka.html
batz
G.O.A.T.
Roger says OG as important as WTF or a slam:
"Q. You've been through a bunch of these now. How should we view the Olympics and the Olympics gold medal compared to the majors? Where does it rank? How do you see it?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, it's unique in so many ways, you know. It's supposed to be that way. I almost believe there should be no points at the Olympics, to be quite honest, because it's not fair for some of the players who can't play the tournament for the reasons you know. There's only four players per country allowed to play per country. Plus we have a tournament running at the same time in Washington that almost gives the same amount of points. So it's a bit odd. That's why I'm almost in favor of not having any points at the Olympics. But the importance to me it's as big as tournaments that are out there. Similar to a World Tour Finals, where unfortunately we don't play the best-of-five-set finals there anymore, or a Grand Slam. It's as high up as the big tournaments. And obviously making it best-of-three in the early rounds, you know, makes the margins more small, particularly on grass. The grass has been different this time around because of the seeding. It was slippery in the beginning, then dry again. The played very different."
"Q. You've been through a bunch of these now. How should we view the Olympics and the Olympics gold medal compared to the majors? Where does it rank? How do you see it?
ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, it's unique in so many ways, you know. It's supposed to be that way. I almost believe there should be no points at the Olympics, to be quite honest, because it's not fair for some of the players who can't play the tournament for the reasons you know. There's only four players per country allowed to play per country. Plus we have a tournament running at the same time in Washington that almost gives the same amount of points. So it's a bit odd. That's why I'm almost in favor of not having any points at the Olympics. But the importance to me it's as big as tournaments that are out there. Similar to a World Tour Finals, where unfortunately we don't play the best-of-five-set finals there anymore, or a Grand Slam. It's as high up as the big tournaments. And obviously making it best-of-three in the early rounds, you know, makes the margins more small, particularly on grass. The grass has been different this time around because of the seeding. It was slippery in the beginning, then dry again. The played very different."
kragster
Hall of Fame
I think you are talking about winning multiple masters vs multiple OGs. In that case I agree with you. What I said (or at least intended to say) was 1 Master vs 1 OG.
The extra prize money of 1 Masters vs 1 OG would likely not be enough to sustain the player anyway. In fact the OG gold would likely raise his profile enough to bring huge endorsements in their native country which would more than compensate for the loss in prize money. I don't believe winning a single Master's raises a player's profile much, for that you would need multiple masters.
Similar threads
