World Tour Finals vs Olympics Gold

[Firing Forehand]

But they skipped due to injures.

No, that's not true.

Nadal could have played at Melbourne but he knew he was going to be demolished in the first or second round, so he skipped it and played 250 on clay instead.

Despite having back discomfort Murray could have played, but he knows he is rubbish on clay and chose to skip RG to be rested for Wimbledon (good choice indeed)

 

[Firing Forehand]

Some of the biggest tournaments in the world use round robin as well.

Not in tennis. We're speaking about tennis. In tennis you win or you're out...(unless you're at the WTF and you can keep playing despite losing)

 

[Firing Forehand]

Still don't get it. If WTF is more difficult to win, has more historical significance, awards more points by ATP then why is it less significant?

It's not more difficult to win, you're allowed to lose and keep playing.
Points argument is weak.
Yes, it has more historical significance than Olympics. But it's not like WTF has the same historical significance as Slams. WTF is only forty years old. Not that historical.

 

[Firing Forehand]

So winning a SOG not part of the golden slam is insignificant?

Yes, it's called Career Golden Slam.

 

[Morj]

Still don't get it. If WTF is more difficult to win, has more historical significance, awards more points by ATP then why is it less significant?

Having won all Grand Slams and Olympics in the SAME YEAR is called the Golden Slam. Steffi Graf is the only one to achieve this.

So winning a SOG not part of the golden slam is insignificant? The only time it's significant if it's part of the golden slam which nobody other than Graf has done?

Pros also called WTF the 5th slam. They hype tournaments to sell tennis. let's not go there.

Why would a pro want to win a SOG over a WTF title?

You haven't countered any of my points...WTF is arguably more difficult to win than a Grand Slam but Grand Slam is still more significant, I specifically said one shouldnt confuse "difficulty" with "significance".

Regarding historical significance I already said, Aussie Open was at one point less important than WTF. Today it is much more important than WTF. In the same way, in the past SOG didnt have as much significance but what matters is today it has greater value placed on it than WTF. The "historical importance" argument is flawed, I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

Your argument about the Golden Slam is laughable. First off Agassi and Nadal are both acknowledged as having Career Golden Slams. You realize there is no special title for having won all the Grand Slams and WTF? This is because WTF is not considered important enough. The simple fact is that the title "Golden Slam" refers to having won all the biggest titles in tennis.

And please, WTF never gets the hype that the Olympics got. Why would former pros and experts hype the Olympics as the 5th slam much more than the WTF? Maybe because its more significant? They could just as easily hype WTF every year as the 5th slam but they dont.

As for why would a pro tennis player want to win SOG over WTF, well that is the easiest question to answer. First off the fact that winning SOG is a huge achievement for your entire country, not just for oneself. The second reason is that SOG has universal value, and is something that can be admired, respected, and appreciated by any individual. Any random person knows how immensely significant a SOG is. WTF is only known to tennis fans.

 

[Firing Forehand]

Why would a pro want to win a SOG over a WTF title?

You can keep questioning, they will keep answering

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7764622&postcount=195

 

[Overdrive]

Sigh, not this again..

 

[monfed]

Don't let the haters get to you,Omega. Any reasonable person would rate the WTF over the olympics,at one point in history it was equal to a slam.
Anyway, this debate will be over when the Olympics drops off the map after Rio,maybe even Rio.

 

[Tony48]

World Tour Finals: 1500 points (1300 for RR loss)
Olympics: 750 points

Thankfully, the people in charge aren't caught up in this recent Olympic hype. Tennis is not gymnastics. It's not swimming. It's not track & field.

The Olympics never were, nor will ever be, the ultimate achievement in tennis. We have ANNUAL events that decide who is the best. Simply because it's important to other sports doesn't mean it's automatically important to EVERY sport. Who's gonna make the argument next? American footballers? Race car drivers?

 

[Firing Forehand]

Any reasonable person would rate

Fedfans-nadalhaters are not reasonable people in my book

Anyway, this debate will be over when the Olympics drops off the map after Rio,maybe even Rio.

Wishful thinking

 

[Firing Forehand]

World Tour Finals: 1500 points (1300 for RR loss)
Olympics: 750 points

Thankfully, the people in charge aren't caught up in this recent Olympic hype. Tennis is not gymnastics. It's not swimming. It's not track & field.

The Olympics never were, nor will ever be, the ultimate achievement in tennis. We have ANNUAL events that decide who is the best. Simply because it's important to other sports doesn't mean it's automatically important to EVERY sport. Who's gonna make the argument next? American footballers? Race car drivers?

Points argument has been refuted ad nauseam.

 

[moonballs]

Um, there have only been 7 times it could have been won since it went back into contention. That only Agassi, Murray and Nadal have won it as "all time greats" could easily be used to indicate how exclusive a club it is. Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only other "all time greats" who have had a chance given the timeframe.

Murray beat 31 year old Fed to win the gold does not make him an all time great as well.

 

[Raz11]

Not in tennis. We're speaking about tennis. In tennis you win or you're out...(unless you're at the WTF and you can keep playing despite losing)

How about lucky losers? For every tournament, there is a chance a lucky loser can win the tournament. What about Davis Cup, you can lose your singles or doubles rubber (you could lose all your rubbers) and still win. So as long as you win the final match , that is all that matters.

ATP tried round robin before but it didn't work out because it was tennis. It didn't work out because of the draw size and time frame. This is why it works for the WTF. Don't need to explain more why Round robin works for the decades old tournament where only the best can play.

Tennis rules and structure have changed multiple times. Originally tennis was played in best of 5 but that doesn't mean best of 3 matches are irrelevant anymore. SO what if you can win a tournament if you have lost a match, tennis isn't defined by how you win a tournament but by how you win a match.

 

[tennisaddict]

Wrong. One player skipped it. And not a top one. Top players are top10

Top players skip Slams. Nadal skipped AO2013 (could have played), Murray skipped RG2013 (could have played)

So Olympics are better than Slams then?

Roddick not top 10 ?

Fish not top 10 ?

Kohly not top 20 ?

They chose to compete in a 250 during the period.

They said 'too far to travel, focus rather on the American swing'.

LOL.....

The olympics hype is ridiculous out here..

 

[Raz11]

No, that's not true.

Nadal could have played at Melbourne but he knew he was going to be demolished in the first or second round, so he skipped it and played 250 on clay instead.

Despite having back discomfort Murray could have played, but he knows he is rubbish on clay and chose to skip RG to be rested for Wimbledon (good choice indeed)

Murray and NAdal skipped playing tennis all together.

Fish and other players didn't skip playing tennis, they only skipped the Olympics because there was a better alternative. You wouldn't see Nadal or Murray skipping a slam to play another tournament.

 

[Tony48]

How about lucky losers? For every tournament, there is a chance a lucky loser can win the tournament. What about Davis Cup, you can lose your singles or doubles rubber (you could lose all your rubbers) and still win. So as long as you win the final match , that is all that matters.

Great point.

And according to Wiki, a couple of lucky losers have gone on to win the tournament, too.

 

[sbengte]

In the 44 years of the WTF, all of the 21 distinct winners have all been slam winners in their career bar three. And of those three - two of them were slam finalists. So only 1 player not been a slam finalist (Davydenko). Also worth noting is that no player who has won the WTF has had had a career high ranking of less than 3rd in the world.

How does the Olympics compare on these criteria ie Any non-slam winners amongst gold medalists? What is the lowest career high ranked gold medalist?

The whole importance to Olympics now appears to be because players supposedly "want" to win it and not because of the difficulty levels of winning it.

Personally, I think Olympics is somewhat like Davis Cup. Players like to win it for emotional/patriotic reasons and it is not the ultimate measure of your skill on a particular surface or format.

What does Olympics bring purely by way of difficulty level or skill on a surface ? Nothing. Surface is not unique, nor is the format compared to the existing ATP/ITF tournaments held round the year. It's importance is mainly because of the 'artifical scarcity' created by holding the event once in 4 years.

Each of the slams and the WTF have unique surfaces and the WTF has a unique format as well making it arguably more difficult to win than even a slam. (You can win a slam without having to go through a top 20 player, but not so with a WTF).

If a great can't win a particular slam in his career, say FO, it is a hole in the resume because it means you are not good enough to win a best of 5 format on clay. What exactly does failure to win an Olympic singles gold show, if you have won slams and masters on the same surface , in the same format multiple times ? That you didn't peak/were not at your best that one time in 4 years when the tournament was held. Nothing more , nothing less.

On the other hand, you get an opportunity to win a WTF every year. If an all time great with multiple slams blows so many chances year after year, it clearly means he is not good enough on that surface , especially against top 8 players.

 

[tennisaddict]

A guy like Novak can play insane level of tennis winning multiple majors for three years, say from 2013-15 and if he does not play or if he loses in 2016 Rio, no way in hell the lack of an olympic gold medal means anything.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Third thread about this.....

Bottom line the olympics are considered as an argument by the media as factor for declaring Nadal the goat and something that is lacking in Fed resume.

The WTF on the other hand is not discussed.

So in terms of being goat the WTF is utterly irrelevant.

 

[GoaLaSSo]

This is pretty simple.

The WTF is worth more points and is more difficult to win than the Olympic gold.

The Olympic medal, however, is probably more special to the player than a WTF win.

In terms of achievement/prestige, I give it to the WTF.
I and many other people would personally rather win the Olympic gold.

 

[RF20Lennon]

This is pretty simple.

The WTF is worth more points and is more difficult to win than the Olympic gold.

The Olympic medal, however, is probably more special to the player than a WTF win.

In terms of achievement/prestige, I give it to the WTF.
I and many other people would personally rather win the Olympic gold.

This seems reasonable. I agree with this.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Third thread about this.....

Bottom line the olympics are considered as an argument by the media as factor for declaring Nadal the goat and something that is lacking in Fed resume.

The WTF on the other hand is not discussed.

So in terms of being goat the WTF is utterly irrelevant.

Pete Sampras agrees with Andre Agassi: Rafael Nadal is making his case to be considered the greatest player of all time.

Sampras says that distinction still belongs to Roger Federer, though.

“It’s always been so clear to me that Roger is the greatest,” Sampras told The Tennis Space. “But I would say that, with Rafa doing what he’s been doing, he has an argument to be in the conversation. Rafa isn’t done yet. He could win more majors. He’s got a winning record against everyone that he has played in his generation. He’s won the Davis Cup [with Spain], he’s won the Olympics [singles].”

 

[tennisaddict]

Nicholas Massu won 2004 olympic singles gold and doubles and successfully competed in Futures till this year.

How come all of a sudden the stock of olympic gold shot up from 2008 ?

Oh, wait ! Who won 2008 SOG ?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Andre Agassi:

"I personally think that Nadal has an argument to be made for the best of all time. If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, 'I'm the best ever,' my first question would be 'well then how come you didn't beat me because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything including gold medal and Davis Cup.'"

 

[tennisaddict]

Andre Agassi:

"I personally think that Davydenko has an argument to be made for the best of all time. If Davydenko is sitting at a table with Nadal and Nadal says, 'I'm the best ever,' my first question would be 'well then how come i am 6-1 on hard courts with you ? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything including WTF"

 

[RF20Lennon]

I have to agree with TDK that WTF isn't nearly mentioned as much as the Olympics and Davis Cup. Dunno why though. Maybe sports journalists are trying to push for a more nationalistic movement to get more fans involved or some other reason. Dunno but I always thought the WTF was a significant tournament or at least that's what commentators hyped it up to be.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Who's the best men's tennis player of all time? It's a debate in which, unlike in golf or basketball, we've got several legit competitors for the throne playing right this very moment. And John McEnroe, himself one of tennis' immortals, is riding hard for Rafael Nadal.

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have. I have always said Roger Federer to me was the greatest player that ever lived, certainly the most beautiful player. But I’m going to tell you right here and now there’s a definite argument, I’m starting to lean toward Rafa.”

 

[tennisaddict]

I have to agree with TDK that WTF isn't nearly mentioned as much as the Olympics and Davis Cup. Dunno why though. Maybe sports journalists are trying to push for a more nationalistic movement to get more fans involved or some other reason. Dunno but I always thought the WTF was a significant tournament or at least that's what commentators hyped it up to be.

People love olympics for events like track and field, swimming, etc., not for tennis.

Do you want to check how much crowd was at tennis events at Beijing or Athens?

 

[mandy01]

And please, WTF never gets the hype that the Olympics got. Why would former pros and experts hype the Olympics as the 5th slam much more than the WTF? Maybe because its more significant? They could just as easily hype WTF every year as the 5th slam but they dont.

Is this a joke? They hype EVERY SINGLE WTF every year! Right from the USO onwards, there is constant coverage of who is likely to make it to the season-ending finale over and over at EVERY tournament. The top two players to qualify for the WTF are always reported all over the news the moment their qualification is issued by the ATP. There are people who keep constant tabs on the Race spots.

Olympics became important starting 2008 when Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, all publicly declared their desire to win it. Before that, nobody bothered.
There's no comparison between the status of AO and Olympics because AO back in those days used to played at the end of the season, around Christmas and players weren't willing to travel halfway across the world at that time. Also, travelling by itself was much harder in those days than it is today and they had to do it for lesser money than what players get today. But AO never lost it's status of a major. Olympics on the other hand, didn't even gain the status of a masters event points-wise.

 

[helterskelter]

The McEnroe quote proves nothing. He's talking about Nadal and what he's won. Nadal has won the Olympics. He hasn't won the WTF. So there you go.

The media hypes the Olympics because most sports fans know of it. From the perspective of a general sports fan, of course the Olympics is a bigger event than the WTF. But from the perspective of a tennis insider, the WTF is a bigger event than the Olympics. It's got more history in the game, it is against the top players, and it's worth more points.

The answer is the WTF.

 

[RF20Lennon]

People love olympics for events like track and field, swimming, etc., not for tennis.

Do you want to check how much crowd was at tennis events at Beijing or Athens?

No I know the viewership and coverage at the WTF beats the Olympics by a country mile but I was wondering why the WTF never gets mentioned.

 

[Luminaire]

Who's the best men's tennis player of all time? It's a debate in which, unlike in golf or basketball, we've got several legit competitors for the throne playing right this very moment. And John McEnroe, himself one of tennis' immortals, is riding hard for Rafael Nadal.

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have. I have always said Roger Federer to me was the greatest player that ever lived, certainly the most beautiful player. But I’m going to tell you right here and now there’s a definite argument, I’m starting to lean toward Rafa.”

you can beat a horse about as well as any I've ever seen. Why not shut up and wait 76 days?

 

[The Dark Knight]

NY TIMES: Federer and Nadal Have Equal Claims on Greatness, for Now

Nadal has won a record eight French Opens on clay, a surface more widely used by tennis players — both professional and recreational — than the grass that has been so friendly to Federer. Nadal also has two important tennis box tops that the 32-year-old Federer is now unlikely to acquire: an Olympic gold medal in singles and a Davis Cup title.

 

[The Dark Knight]

you can beat a horse about as well as any I've ever seen. Why not shut up and wait 76 days?

75 now eastern time

 

[Luminaire]

NY TIMES: Federer and Nadal Have Equal Claims on Greatness, for Now

Nadal has won a record eight French Opens on clay, a surface more widely used by tennis players — both professional and recreational — than the grass that has been so friendly to Federer. Nadal also has two important tennis box tops that the 32-year-old Federer is now unlikely to acquire: an Olympic gold medal in singles and a Davis Cup title.

So what???

 

[helterskelter]

No I know the viewership and coverage at the WTF beats the Olympics by a country mile but I was wondering why the WTF never gets mentioned.

As I said: most media coverage is directed at general sports fans and not at tennis fans. The GOAT discussion is an especially marked case of this. Anyone who follows closely knows that Federer and Nadal aren't the only two candidates and that it's basically an impossible call to make. That it's so commonly debated in the media shows the type of audience the media is aiming at.

The Olympics is the biggest sports event in the world, so of course the media hypes it.

 

[Luminaire]

75 now eastern time

so shut up

 

[The Dark Knight]

You don't like the mcenroe quote? How's the NY times...it's every article .....every pro .....mentions olympics as a factor in greatness and WTF s ignored .

NY TIMES: Federer and Nadal Have Equal Claims on Greatness, for Now

Nadal has won a record eight French Opens on clay, a surface more widely used by tennis players — both professional and recreational — than the grass that has been so friendly to Federer. Nadal also has two important tennis box tops that the 32-year-old Federer is now unlikely to acquire: an Olympic gold medal in singles and a Davis Cup title.

 

[The Dark Knight]

so shut up

Why don't they shut up? Why should allow lies to spread? Why do you stand for it? I think there are nown threen threads of this bs??

 

[helterskelter]

You don't like the mcenroe quote? How's the NY times...it's every article .....every pro .....mentions olympics as a factor in greatness and WTF s ignored .

Logic fail again. Nadal has won the Olympics so it is indeed a string to his bow that Federer doesn't have. The article never says that Federer has some strings to his bow that Nadal doesn't have. If it did, it would list the WTF title, along with more Australian Opens, US Opens, Wimbledons, year-end #1s, and weeks at #1. None of them are mentioned either. Does that mean they don't count?

 

[RF20Lennon]

NY times article also mentions WTF TDK. Also talks about Manuel Santana taking about how it means a lot to Nadal.

 

[Tony48]

NY TIMES: Federer and Nadal Have Equal Claims on Greatness, for Now

Nadal has won a record eight French Opens on clay, a surface more widely used by tennis players — both professional and recreational — than the grass that has been so friendly to Federer. Nadal also has two important tennis box tops that the 32-year-old Federer is now unlikely to acquire: an Olympic gold medal in singles and a Davis Cup title.

OMG. If you (in this case, the NY Times) make the argument that your GOAT status hinges on frickin DAVIS CUP then you automatically lose all credibility in my book.

 

[Luminaire]

You don't like the mcenroe quote? How's the NY times...it's every article .....every pro .....mentions olympics as a factor in greatness and WTF s ignored .

no winning this argument

 

[helterskelter]

Omega,

I agree with almost everything you say, but with one minor exception: you said that you didn't want to list women's winners because there is no tournament to compare the WTF to. That just isn't the case. The women have an almost exactly parallel event. It now follows the same format as the WTF. It used to be a 16-player knockout with a best-of-5 final. (So did the men's version, but it moved to the current format much earlier).

 

[Luminaire]

Why don't they shut up? Why should allow lies to spread? Why do you stand for it? I think there are nown threen threads of this bs??

Lies? They are opinions.

 

[tennisaddict]

Why don't they shut up? Why should allow lies to spread? Why do you stand for it? I think there are nown threen threads of this bs??

The day olympics gets more points than WTF is when it will be more valuable.

As at this time, olympics SOG is half the worth of WTF. Something like Fed making the SF this time at WTF.

It will be empty stands at Rio and Tokyo.

 

[The Dark Knight]

OMG. If you (in this case, the NY Times) make the argument that your GOAT status hinges on frickin DAVIS CUP then you automatically lose all credibility in my book.

I can keep going....like I said its every media source and pro....ALL mention the olympics. Take your pick.


The Atlantic : Rafael Nadal Might Just Be the Best Ever

Yet consider that Nadal has beaten Federer in 21 of their 31 meetings—and eight of their 10 matches at Grand Slams. Or that Nadal has won Olympic gold in singles and Federer hasn’t.

 

[chjtennis]

Whenever someone starts a thread on WTF v Olympics, the motive is simple. To make Nadal the GOAT. Do they even have to resort to lies to promote Nadal? That's sad. I'll tell you the obvious truth: Olympics tennis was something nobody really cared that much about before Nadal. To compare it with WTF in terms of significance shows that you have only followed tennis since Nadal's debut.

 

[Tony48]

I can keep going....like I said its every media source and pro....ALL mention the olympics. Take your pick.


The Atlantic : Rafael Nadal Might Just Be the Best Ever

Yet consider that Nadal has beaten Federer in 21 of their 31 meetings—and eight of their 10 matches at Grand Slams. Or that Nadal has won Olympic gold in singles and Federer hasn’t.

None of that matters. Objectively, a WTF is worth more than an Olympic gold medal. 1500 points vs. 750 points.

 

[The Dark Knight]

None of that matters. Objectively, a WTF is worth more than an Olympic gold medal. 1500 points vs. 750 points.

Stats versu reality. It could be worth 5 billion points....no one seems to care when talking about goat. Fed won six wtf's.....it's completely ignored.


Huffington Post: Could Rafa Nadal Be the Greatest Tennis Player of All Time?

As the match was nearing its conclusion, John McEnroe made the comment that "it's hard to see how Roger could have played much better that he did." Yet Roger lost -- for the 17th time overall to Rafa who Roger has now beaten only 8 times overall. In Grand Slam Finals, Nadal holds a decisive 6-2 edge over Federer. Nadal is also the youngest player of the open era to win a career Grand Slam (winning all four Grand Slam singles titles) and the second male player (Andre Agassi is the other) to win a Career Golden Slam (all four Grand Slams and an Olympic Gold medal). He has also won three Davis Cup Finals as part of the Spanish team, and holds a record 19 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles. By comparison, Federer has never won a singles Olympic Gold medal or won a Davis Cup Final for his country Switzerland