World Tour Finals vs Olympics Gold

[mandy01]

2005-2007

Federer in his prime

2005 1st round Holland defeats Switzerland --> Federer didnt bother to play
2006 1st round Australia defeats Switzerland --> Federer didnt bother to play
2007 1st round Spain defeats Switzerland --> Federer didnt bother to play

Why are Nadal fans inherently thick? I've already countered this nonsense by stating Federer never had anyone to back him during that time.

He's played enough to boast 4 Davis Cup titles

Hardly. In fact majority of the ties were played by Spain without Nadal. At two of the 4 DC finals, Nadal did not even show up. So clearly, he has contributed very little to Spain in terms of helping its progress.

Roger on the other hand has played more ties, won more ties and has been single-handedly instrumental in keeping Switzerland in the World Group. In order to win DC he would have to play ALL ties. Let me know when Nadal does that and then we shall make the comparison.

 

[mandy01]

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Agassi

Neither Murray nor Djokovic have expressly placed OG above WTF to my knowledge. Nadal MIGHT do that because it is his way of chickening out of winning WTF. Agassi again, MIGHT to do it because he was inherently insecure, as revealed by his autobiography.

Either way, they still lag behind the legions of Champions who've won and endorsed the WTF over several years.

And yes, history matters, you infact brought history up while trying to show Slams had been around for longer than WTF. So you now turning around and saying it doesn't matter is sheer irony and thoroughly laughable.

 

[Omega_7000]

And yes, history matters, you infact brought history up while trying to show Slams had been around for longer than WTF. So you now turning around and saying it doesn't matter is sheer irony and thoroughly laughable.

Thank you. Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier...It seems people are being selective/biased when it comes to how important history is.

 

[Omega_7000]

SORRY I originally posted this on the other thread!!

If I were to give my reasons of why I would rate the WTF over OG then it would be this.

These are MY REASONS and MY OPINIONS. Not facts obviously!

1. It is worth significantly more points.

Let's think about this for a second. Tournaments are given ranking points based on their importance and difficulty level. Thats why Slams are given 2000 points. Masters are given 1000 and below that you have 500 and 250 and so on and so forth. Now winning the Olympics will give you 750. Winning the WTF on the other hand gives you 1500. In the Olympics you probably will not meet a top 8 player till at least the QF's. Here, every match you play is against one.

2. You have to QUALIFY for it.

Players have to play year round and gain enough points and end the season within the top 8 to qualify for this event. Almost 10 months of struggle = a spot in this tournament. Not even the slams make you work as hard just to get a spot. Only 8 players out of so many others get a chance to play so the difficulty level just to qualify is HUGE.

3. It gets far more coverage, viewership, sponsorship and spectators than the TENNIS Olympics and fans LOVE IT. (Keep in mind not the Olympics as a whole)

Firstly the 02 Arena is the second biggest arena that tennis is played in only after Arthur Ashe Stadium. It can house 17,500 people. The O2 is mainly used for huge concerts and the fact that they are able to hire the place shows they are making big bucks. When I wanted to watch the Olympic tennis matches, I found myself not being able to find the matches on any channel. ESPN didn't have it, Tennis Channel did not have it, nor did most other sports networks. But for the World Tour Finals ESPN had it, Tennis Channel had it, Skysports had it and so did many others. It shows that it is a much BIGGER event with more fans flocking to see it. Boris Becker said it draws more crowds than he had ever seen in non-slam tournaments and just the overall buzz is amazing. He said its an "instant classic". The Olympics on the other hand.....not really that watched. Tennis Olympics that is. Remember its the FAN BASE that has the last word. They carry everything.

4. Tennis is not a nationalistic sport and the Olympics is turning it into one

The beautiful thing about tennis is that you pick your players based on their style, game and personality. Which is quite different from how you pick your football/soccer, American football and Basketball teams. Tennis brings people together because you could be from Mumbai or NYC and still be cheering for the same guy. The problem I have with the Olympics (and Davis Cup) is that it seeks to make the sport a nationalistic thing. Now think about it. Let's say I was British but my favorite player was Roger Federer. So in the Olympics final, if I don't cheer for Andy Murray I basically feel like a traitor or an outcast. The Olympics and Davis Cup create unnecessary divide amongst people. Stop turning Tennis into a nationalistic sport!!

5. Not everyone is that Patriotic

When a person wins Davis Cup or the Olympic Medal then THEY dont win it. The nation does. People in the center court last year were chanting TEAM GB. So if Scotland were to break from the rest of GB (I know it won't happen but for argument's sake) and Andy Murray still felt strongly about Scotland, the gold medal would not follow him. Britain would still keep it. So the point I'm making here is that its not an individual achievement but a national achievement. Nadal has not won Davis Cup. Spain won Davis Cup which Nadal happened to be a part of. That would be like saying Rooney has won the EPL or Ronaldo has won La Liga when it is United and Madrid that have won it. Not everyone is patriotic! its a fact! So why would you try so hard to get a medal which is not really your individual achievement if you are not patriotic to begin with?? WTF is an individual achievement for which you have to qualify for and then win beating the top players. WTF is a common ground for all players. You are playing for YOURSELF and YOU want to win.

6. Most GOAT Candidates (Except Nadal) or Ex GOAT candidates don't have it.
Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Sampras, Borg, and Federer. But Laver, Rosewall, Sampras and Federer have all won the WTF, WCT or YEC. (not sure about Pancho). So if one has to be used as a measuring stick it has to be an INDIVIDUAL achievement, and something that most of the greats have done IMO.

So in my book, I would rate the WTF over the Gold Medal any day. I would rather win the WTF hands down. Personally!

+ 1

 

[RNadal]

Pointswise, it is obviously that the WTF is more important. But I'd rather have a OG instead. You have to win more matches to conquer it. Inferior players play with much more passion making it more surpriseable. It happens once every 4 years. I don't know, I bet that the taste is more special.

 

[heftylefty]

Winning a Gold Medal at the Olympic Games is very special. But why do people act like somehow Federer Gold Medal is not significant? Yes, the premier singles player won his gold medal playing double. Think about for a moment. A non-double specialist won a Gold Medal playing doubles. That's pretty friggin' impressive.

There maybe more glory in singles, but a gold medal is a gold medal.

 

[TMF]

Federer has a gold and a silver medal. The only medal that he's missing is the bronze.

 

[tennisaddict]

If Gold medals are the ultimate, then Massu > Nadal. Massu has 2 golds.

If James Blake had won the 2008 Gold, will we be seeing these arguments ? Ridiculous.

 

[bluetrain4]

There seems be be an inevitable acension of the Olympics as a big thing in analyzing careers. It seems to have really picked up during the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.

Previously, it was seen more as icing on the cake, maybe a way to distinguish players who were otherwise similar, but really not that much more. I mean, obviously, the Olympics, overall, is incredibly prestigious, but it wasn't really that way for Olympic tennis through the first few tennis events (due to lack history, and to the fact that tennis already had its own most pretigious events). This is not to say that Olympic gold wasn't an impressive feat, or that any particular player shouldn't consider his/her gold to be among their finest acheivements. Lindsay Davenport, for example says she considers it an accomplishment on par with her majors. But, that was always up to the indivdual palyer. Many fans and commentators didn't really view Olympic gold as essential or more valuable than a WTF title or really that essentialin the overall picture.

I'd agree with this personally. I feel the Olympic tennis kind of rides the coattails of the "Olympic" brand, and because the Olympics really is the biggest, most pretigious accomplishment for most Olympic sports, that was bound to spill over to tennis, regardless of its independent-of-Olympics nature.

I have no problems viewing Olympic Gold as a great accomplishment, because it is. But, I do sort of think it's overblown, especially considering the format of the tournament, which isn't anything special or different (like if it were a true multi-gender team event, or had pool play like the WTF, only bigger (4 pools of 8, or 8 pools of 8, or some other combination), or if women played a best of 5 final) than any other big non-Slam event. And, with the player restrictions per country, the Olympics can even be a weaker field than a Masters.

But, as I said, it seems like the ascendency of the Olympics as a tennis accomplishment and Olympic gold really mattering to GOAT discussions or debates about who had a better career, is well established, and I really don't see anything turning that momentum around. It's hard to argue with it because if you question it's importance or relavance, all any one has to say is "Because it's the Olympics" and most people won't even question that because generally Olympic gold is seen as the ultimate in athletic accomplishment.

 

[TMF]

Usain Bolt gold medal in 100 meters dash is way more significant than a gold medal in tennis.

Not all Olympic events are created equal. Tennis in single and double doesn't have any effect on a player's legacy. However, Bolt gold medal in track and field made him famous, and was the top 100 highest paid athletes(#63).

 

[Firing Forehand]

Why are Nadal fans inherently thick? I've already countered this nonsense by stating Federer never had anyone to back him during that time.

False.

Wawrinka was around since 2005. Maybe he was young, but so was Nadal and he played for Spain.

2005 1st round Holland defeats Switzerland --> Federer didnt bother to play

Switzerland was the host.

Holland players: #73 Sjeng SCHALKEN, #78 Peter WESSELS Dennis VAN SCHEPPINGEN, #124 Dennis VAN SCHEPPINGEN

Sorry mate, but this was a very winnable tie.

Hardly. In fact majority of the ties were played by Spain without Nadal. At two of the 4 DC finals, Nadal did not even show up. So clearly, he has contributed very little to Spain in terms of helping its progress.

Dont you get tired of LYING?

2004 DC Final -> 17 years old Baby Nadal beats Prime Roddick. Spain wins.
2008 DC Final -> Nadal is injured. Played previous ties. Spain wins.
2009 DC Final -> Nadal beats Tomas Berdych. Spain wins.
2011 DC Final -> Nadal beats Del Potro. Spain wins.

Nadal has contributed immensely more than Federer regarding getting victories and titles for their countries.

 

[Firing Forehand]

Neither Murray nor Djokovic have expressly placed OG above WTF to my knowledge.

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

This is what they said. Also knowing that Nole is a meganationatistic guy, no doubts about it.

 

[RF20Lennon]

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

This is what they said. Also knowing that Nole is a meganationatistic guy, no doubts about it.

Refer to my post about the list I made. I want to hear your take on it! Especially about the nationalistic and patriotism bit!

 

[Mainad]

Usain Bolt gold medal in 100 meters dash is way more significant than a gold medal in tennis.

Not all Olympic events are created equal. Tennis in single and double doesn't have any effect on a player's legacy.

What utter nonsense! If a player wins Olympic gold, it undoubtedly adds to his or her legacy whatever else they may or may not have accomplished. Why on earth do you think Federer and Nadal talk constantly about being fit enough to play Rio in 3 years' time? Just for something to do because they are bored?

Get real, please!

 

[Firing Forehand]

Federer has a gold and a silver medal. The only medal that he's missing is the bronze.

Wrong.
He hasnt got SOG. Only SOG counts.

 

[TMF]

Wrong.
He hasnt got SOG. Only SOG counts.

Did I said he had a sog ?

All gold medal count the same except if you compare to different event(e.g. tennis to track & field).

 

[chandu612]

Majority posters would agree that WTF is somewhere between a major and a MS1000 i.e. lower than a major and higher than a MS1000.

It seems people are undecided when it comes to comparing it with Olympics gold.

Let's take a look at the list of Olympic Gold winners,
1896 Athens  John Pius Boland (GBR)
1900 Paris   Laurence Doherty (GBR)
1904 St. Louis  Beals Wright (USA)
1908 London  Josiah Ritchie (GBR)
1912 Stockholm  Charles Winslow (RSA)
1920 Antwerp  Louis Raymond (RSA)
1924 Paris   Vincent Richards (USA)
1928–1984 not included in the Olympic program
1988 Seoul   Miloslav Mečíř (TCH)
1992 Barcelona  Marc Rosset (SUI)
1996 Atlanta  Andre Agassi (USA)
2000 Sydney  Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
2004 Athens  Nicolás Massú (CHI)
2008 Beijing   Rafael Nadal (ESP)
2012 London  Andy Murray (GBR)


Now let's take a look at the list of WTF winners,
2013  Novak Djokovic (3/3)
2012  Novak Djokovic (2/3)
2011  Roger Federer (6/6)
2010  Roger Federer (5/6)
2009  Nikolay Davydenko
2008  Novak Djokovic (1/3)
2007  Roger Federer (4/6)
2006  Roger Federer (3/6)
2005  David Nalbandian
2004  Roger Federer (2/6)
2003  Roger Federer (1/6)
2002  Lleyton Hewitt (2/2)
2001  Lleyton Hewitt (1/2)
2000  Gustavo Kuerten
1999  Pete Sampras (5/5)
1998  Àlex Corretja
1997  Pete Sampras (4/5)
1996  Pete Sampras (3/5)
1995  Boris Becker (3/3)
1994  Pete Sampras (2/5)
1993  Michael Stich
1992  Boris Becker (2/3)
1991  Pete Sampras (1/5)
1990  Andre Agassi
1989  Stefan Edberg
1988  Boris Becker (1/3)
1987  Ivan Lendl (5/5)
1986  Ivan Lendl (4/5)
1985  Ivan Lendl (3/5)
1984  John McEnroe (3/3)
1983  John McEnroe (2/3)
1982  Ivan Lendl (2/5)
1981  Ivan Lendl (1/5)
1980  Björn Borg (2/2)
1979  Björn Borg (1/2)
1978  John McEnroe (1/3)
1977  Jimmy Connors
1976  Manuel Orantes
1975  Ilie Năstase (4/4)
1974  Guillermo Vilas
1973  Ilie Năstase (3/4)
1972  Ilie Năstase (2/4)
1971  Ilie Năstase (1/4)
1970  Stan Smith

- Although Olympics has a very rich history, tennis in Olympics does not. It wasn't even a part of the Olympics for 56 years from 1928 to 1984.
- Only two all time greats have won Olympics gold...(Nadal & Agassi)
- A slew of all time greats have won WTF not just once, but multiple times (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker, Djokovic, Agassi, Edberg, lendl, McEnroe, Nastase, Vilas)

This tells me that the great players from their respective eras cared more about the WTF than the Olympics Gold. Only in recent times has the Olympics gold medal in tennis become important.

*** So if you believe Olympics gold is bigger than a WTF. Is it also bigger than multiple WTF's? Are you saying that no matter how many WTF's you win, an Olympic gold medal will trump all WTF's?

*** If you believe the WTF is more prestigious than Olympic gold medal, please provide your reasons.

Also list all French Open winners over the years and compare them to WTF winners.

Yes...WTF > French Open

 

[heftylefty]

Usain Bolt gold medal in 100 meters dash is way more significant than a gold medal in tennis.

Not all Olympic events are created equal. Tennis in single and double doesn't have any effect on a player's legacy. However, Bolt gold medal in track and field made him famous, and was the top 100 highest paid athletes(#63).

Only in regards to commercial significant and popularity. A Gold Medal is a Gold Medal; whether you win it in the 100m dash or yachting.

Based on your logic WWF (not the World Wildlife Fund) is more significant to Roman-Greco wrestling because it's popular. Popularity is not the end all that be all in the larger picture.

 

[TMF]

What utter nonsense! If a player wins Olympic gold, it undoubtedly adds to his or her legacy whatever else they may or may not have accomplished. Why on earth do you think Federer and Nadal talk constantly about being fit enough to play Rio in 3 years' time? Just for something to do because they are bored?

Get real, please!

If you think Nadal doesn't have a OG will hurt his legacy then fine, that's your opinion. I don't considered him any less without a medal, because it's only 1 tournament when compare to his 60 total titles. Plus, many past great players doesn't have a medal, let alone a gold, because most of them don't play or didn't have a chance. And I don't think it boost Federer higher in goat whether he has a gold or not. It's the slam and all the ATP results, ranking which Federer/Nadal are placed in all time great.

 

[Firing Forehand]

Refer to my post about the list I made. I want to hear your take on it! Especially about the nationalistic and patriotism bit!

I get you are not nationalistic and you dont care about it. BUT the rest of the world is and does care.
And if they consider this is the greatest, your opinion is not relevant.

I can consider WTF is an exho, but if the rest of the world doesnt agree, my opinion is not valid.

And if you are honest, you need to admit that 90% of the people and even a higher percentage of athletes care a lot about it

 

[Firing Forehand]

Did I said he had a sog ?

All gold medal count the same except if you compare to different event(e.g. tennis to track & field).

Wrong.

Tenniswise when you compare resumes for the GOAT issue, doubles dont compute.

 

[Omega_7000]

Also list all French Open winners over the years and compare them to WTF winners.

Yes...WTF > French Open

Yeah numbnuts! Let's look at it...

Winners of French Open --- Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Borg, Kuerten, Lendl, Vilander, Vilas, Laver, Rosewall,........need more?

Conclusion ::: French Open > WTF

 

[TMF]

I get you are not nationalistic and you dont care about it. BUT the rest of the world is and does care.
And if they consider this is the greatest, your opinion is not relevant.

I can consider WTF is an exho, but if the rest of the world doesnt agree, my opinion is not valid.

And if you are honest, you need to admit that 90% of the people and even a higher percentage of athletes care a lot about it

Sure, you are entitled to your opinion.

One can say Monte Carlo is more prestigious than Wimbledon. It's a valid opinion too.

 

[Omega_7000]

Wrong.

Tenniswise when you compare resumes for the GOAT issue, doubles dont compute.

You're cherry picking whatever suits your agenda...

- History is only important when comparing majors to tennis @ Olympics.
- History is not important when comparing WTF to tennis @ Olympics
- Only gold medal in individual events are important (for example: more than half of Michael Phelps medals are in team events but he still holds the record for most medals)

Yeah everything is cherry picked to make your favorite player look good. It's very obvious where your bias is.

 

[TMF]

Wrong.

Tenniswise when you compare resumes for the GOAT issue, doubles dont compute.

Your biased opinion doesn't mean it's a fact.

 

[spinovic]

Without a doubt, the WTF was significantly more prestigious than the Olympics in the past.

Only recently, in this era has the Olympics become more important, with the emphasis placed on it by guys like the Big 4.

It is very difficult to "rate" the Olympics because it is/has just recently become a tournament that all the top guys want to win and put a lot of focus on. Also, only happening every 4 years makes it tough to compare to anything else.

I definitely think the WTF is the biggest tournament after the slams. I am not sure where to put the Olympics. Right now, I would rate it right up there with any other tournament after the slams. It is a nice piece to add to your resume. However, going forward, since it is only every 4 years, I would not automatically say it is a glaring hole in someone's resume because a player could conceivably not get to play it during his peak year(s), depending on timing, injuries, surface, etc. For example, if a guy like Sampras comes along in the future and the Olympics are held on clay during his peak, he is unlikely to snag a gold. I suppose I see it as a big bonus for anyone who gets it, but not automatically a huge minus for someone who doesn't.

JMO

 

[batz]

I see WTF and Olympics as about the same. In a non-Olympic year, WTF is the biggest 'other' outside the slams - but in an Olympic year, there are 2 'others' IMO.

 

[RNadal]

Your biased opinion doesn't mean it's a fact.

But you have to admit it that doubles results won't count to this useless goat debate. What he said is true. However, no one is denying that Grandfatheter has the Olympics gold.

 

[TMF]

Anyway, it's not fair to use Olympics results against the past great players because they didn't care and/or have a chance to play.

If Nadal fans want to use Olympics results against them, then Laver's 1962 amateur GS, 200 single titles can be use against Nadal.

 

[RNadal]

Without a doubt, the WTF was significantly more prestigious than the Olympics in the past.

Only recently, in this era has the Olympics become more important, with the emphasis placed on it by guys like the Big 4.

It is very difficult to "rate" the Olympics because it is/has just recently become a tournament that all the top guys want to win and put a lot of focus on. Also, only happening every 4 years makes it tough to compare to anything else.

I definitely think the WTF is the biggest tournament after the slams. I am not sure where to put the Olympics. Right now, I would rate it right up there with any other tournament after the slams. It is a nice piece to add to your resume. However, going forward, since it is only every 4 years, I would not automatically say it is a glaring hole in someone's resume because a player could conceivably not get to play it during his peak year(s), depending on timing, injuries, surface, etc. For example, if a guy like Sampras comes along in the future and the Olympics are held on clay during his peak, he is unlikely to snag a gold. I suppose I see it as a big bonus for anyone who gets it, but not automatically a huge minus for someone who doesn't.

JMO

So by this logic we could say that it it's not a huge minus for Rafa having won a single WTF, because his worst surface is indoors. And actually it is.

 

[RNadal]

Anyway, it's not fair to use Olympics results against the past great players because they didn't care and/or have a chance to play.

If Nadal fans want to use Olympics results against them, then Laver's 1962 amateur GS, 200 single titles can be use against Nadal.

But then let's subtract all AO titles from the players, since in the past nobody cared for it and some player didn't even go there to play it.

 

[lunch]

Also list all French Open winners over the years and compare them to WTF winners.

Yes...WTF > French Open

Useless exercise. It's incredibly flawed logic to compare WTF winners with French Open (or Olympics Gold) winners and deduce anything about the relative "prestige" of each tournament. The difference in format and player pool make the two completely incomparable.

WTF features the top eight players in the world. The round-robin format greatly reduces the chances of a fluke elimination, as a top player can afford to lose a match and still advance. Thus, it makes logical sense that a lot of all-time greats have won the tournament.

A 128-player single elimination tournament is a completely different story, and is bound to have much more unpredictability in the result (though this has become less true in recent years due to the wide gap between the Big 4 and the field).

For what it's worth, I'd be willing to bet that most players would gladly trade multiple WTFs for one additional Slam title. And for one Olympic Gold (though I do agree that the prestige of the Olympics tournament is a relatively new phenomenon).

 

[TMF]

But then let's subtract all AO titles from the players, since in the past nobody cared for it and some player didn't even go there to play it.

If you do that then Fed, Nadal and Agassi doesn't have a career slam. Laver wouldn't have a 1969 GS which hurts even more. Nole's 6 slam is reduce to two.

Player like Borg or Mac wouldn't have any effect.

 

[tennisaddict]

In any of the olympic threads it is hilarious to see Murray fans jumping into action to defend olympics.

Cannot blame them as that is probably Murray's "crown" achievement.

2004 Athens - Massu played Fish in the final. Shows the calibre.

The same Fish chose to skip 2012 olympics saying ' Been there , done that. Here I come Atlanta open ( which is incidentally played on a makeshift stadium , with 1 show court , right along an interstate highway' ).

what makes olympics so special from 2008 ?

Just because Nadal won it or Nadal and Fed said it was an important event ?

 

[NatF]

The format of the Olympics means it's only slightly more unique than a masters series event.

 

[RF20Lennon]

I get you are not nationalistic and you dont care about it. BUT the rest of the world is and does care.
And if they consider this is the greatest, your opinion is not relevant.

I can consider WTF is an exho, but if the rest of the world doesnt agree, my opinion is not valid.

And if you are honest, you need to admit that 90% of the people and even a higher percentage of athletes care a lot about it

For other sports like archery and swimming yes! But for tennis the WTF has a much bigger fan base.

 

[batz]

In any of the olympic threads it is hilarious to see Murray fans jumping into action to defend olympics.

Cannot blame them as that is probably Murray's "crown" achievement.

2004 Athens - Massu played Fish in the final. Shows the calibre.

The same Fish chose to skip 2012 olympics saying ' Been there , done that. Here I come Atlanta open ( which is incidentally played on a makeshift stadium , with 1 show court , right along an interstate highway' ).

what makes olympics so special from 2008 ?

Just because Nadal won it or Nadal and Fed said it was an important event ?

Your strawmen are really funny mate - but not as funny as the cognitive dissonance.

OG is not important but it's the current Wimbledon champion's "crown (sic)" achievement? Logic not your strong point?

Roger doesn't need an OSG to be the GOAT - there's no need to try and demean it.

The fact is that OG is now an important part of the tennis. There was a time when this was not the case - just as there was a time when the same was true of the Australian Open - but times change.

You are of course entitled to your opinion that OG continues to be relatively unimportant - just as others are entitled to their opinions.

 

[cknobman]

Fact: ATP values the WTF higher than the Olympics.

/end thread

 

[batz]

Fact: ATP values the WTF higher than the Olympics.

/end thread

Fact - your attempt to equate ranking points with 'value' is an assertion - not a fact.


continue thread

 

[NatF]

Hewitt skipped the Olympics in 2004 because 'He wasn't interested'. The hype is very recent.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fact - your attempt to equate ranking points with 'value' is an assertion - not a fact.


continue thread

If that is the case, can Atlanta Open be greater than US Open and Marseilles greater than FO and Brisbane greater than AO ?

Points equate prestige and there are no two ways about it. Top players play the events with most points.

Events with higher points are mandatory. that should tell something.

The day they make olympics more than 1500 points is when it will be more important than WTF.

I agree that olympics tennis is gaining more attention , because top players have started playing it.

However using that to demean Federer, when his best has passed by 2008 is extremely FRADULENT argument.

 

[cknobman]

Fact - your attempt to equate ranking points with 'value' is an assertion - not a fact.


continue thread

The fact that points are awarded and applied to a RANKING system equates directly to VALUE. It may not be the value you want it to be, but nonetheless it is applied to a quantifiable and measurable value system.

Actually its the only FACTUAL argument made in this thread.

 

[NLBwell]

Hewitt skipped the Olympics in 2004 because 'He wasn't interested'. The hype is very recent.

Yes, it just generated so much interest this year because it was held at the All England Club. Perhaps it will maintain that interest and become important over the long term, but it was not an important event since it has been re-introduced into the Olympics (don't know how it was seen prior to that - but it was dropped as a sport). Players liked "the Olympic experience" but is wasn't a big tournament that they pointed their training toward.

 

[tennisaddict]

Next time they schedule olympics very close to a major or in a far away place, we will see how many players will really show interest.

 

[RNadal]

If you do that then Fed, Nadal and Agassi doesn't have a career slam. Laver wouldn't have a 1969 GS which hurts even more. Nole's 6 slam is reduce to two.

Player like Borg or Mac wouldn't have any effect.

So your argument that he OG can't be used against past players doesn't make sense. All tournaments should, no matter whether they were a big thing in past times or not.

 

[batz]

The fact that points are awarded and applied to a RANKING system equates directly to VALUE. It may not be the value you want it to be, but nonetheless it is applied to a quantifiable and measurable value system.

Actually its the only FACTUAL argument made in this thread.

For the purposes of ranking points, the WTF is worth up to 100% more than OG - that is beyond dispute.

What isn't beyond dispute is the notion that this can and should be extended beyond the context of ranking, to the point where it represents an essentially irrefutable argument as to the relative value of OSG and WTF (as implied by your /end thread comment).

The ATP could go back to awarding zero points for winning the OSG - it would still be valued as it is today by players, fans etc.

Roger Federer wasn't in tears after beating Juan Martin Del Potro because of the extra ranking points he'd just won.

 

[TMF]

So your argument that he OG can't be used against past players doesn't make sense. All tournaments should, no matter whether they were a big thing in past times or not.

Good for you. And Laver 1962 amateur GS can use against Nadal.

As for Fed fans, they are not going to use Fed's Olympics against Laver, so Laver 1962 GS can't be use against Federer.

 

[Mainad]

In any of the olympic threads it is hilarious to see Murray fans jumping into action to defend olympics.

Lol...not half as hilarious as Fed fans jumping into action to dismiss it because their man has tried hard to win it but failed to do so. If Fed had won it, I somehow doubt we would even be having this discussion.

Cannot blame them as that is probably Murray's "crown" achievement.

Yeah sure, because the US Open and Wimbledon wins don't count for much do they?

The same Fish chose to skip 2012 olympics saying ' Been there , done that. Here I come Atlanta open ( which is incidentally played on a makeshift stadium , with 1 show court , right along an interstate highway' ).

Fish was devastated when he failed to win the gold at 2004 Athens (he was runner-up and took silver) but it's a well-known fact that he hates playing anywhere but on the hardcourts of North America.

what makes olympics so special from 2008 ?

Agassi had already won it for the USA on home soil at 1996 Atlanta. He regards it as one of his proudest achievements. Well, why wouldn't he?

Just because Nadal won it or Nadal and Fed said it was an important event ?

But why would Fed say that and keep repeating how much he wants to be fit enough to play 2016 Rio if it was of no importance to him. After all, he never says he hopes to be fit enough to play the WTF at the end of that year!

 

[RNadal]

For the purposes of ranking points, the WTF is worth up to 100% more than OG - that is beyond dispute.

What isn't beyond dispute is the notion that this can and should be extended beyond the context of ranking, to the point where it represents an essentially irrefutable argument as to the relative value of OSG and WTF (as implied by your /end thread comment).

The ATP could go back to awarding zero points for winning the OSG - it would still be valued as it is today by players, fans etc.

Roger Federer wasn't in tears after beating Juan Martin Del Potro because of the extra ranking points he'd just won.

That pretty much summarizes it all.

Lovely signature by the way

 

[RNadal]

Good for you. And Laver 1962 amateur GS can use against Nadal.

As for Fed fans, they are not going to use Fed's Olympics against Laver, so Laver 1962 GS can't be use against Federer.

I don't get it. This is not a Federer vs Nadal discussion. Stop being a troll. I never said here that the WTF isn't an important tournament. I even said that it is a big minus on Rafa's curriculum. Fact is the OG is very important as well, and it should and will be take into consideration at a goat discussion, whether you like it or not, my friend. Stop narrowing everything.