PDA

View Full Version : What's more valuable? Olympic gold or a grand slam?


tennisbear7
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:20 PM
I think olympic gold. The top players all play for that opportunity and know that the olympics is held only once every four years. Grand slams however, are held four times a year.

goldenlox
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Didn't Sampras not play Olympics?
Usually slams have better fields. A lot of top players skip the Olympics. Kim didn't want to play because of sponsor issues.

Old article -

On Monday she questioned the validity of the sport in the Games, underlining her decision to stay away.

"Tennis does not feel like an Olympic sport," Clijsters said at the Hopman Cup in Perth. "I don't think they get the publicity or the crowds they get at Grand Slams. "I mean yeah, great, it is in the Olympics, but for me I don't think it feels like an Olympic sport."

bwahahahahaha
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:24 PM
:spit:

Olympic gold medal is worth no more than a tier 1 in tennis.

venus_rulez
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:33 PM
Definitely a slam. You go into the history books with a slam. Olympic Gold definitely beefs up the resume, but if it's all you have, it's much easier to dismiss than if you only win a slam.

Pasta-Na
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:37 PM
olympic gold of course. national hero and once per 4 years.

bwahahahahaha
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:39 PM
olympic gold of course. national hero and once per 4 years.

:speakles: Are you serious?

Slutati
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:46 PM
In athletics and similar sports olympic gold is very valuable, but I don't think it's that important in tennis. It really doesn't feel like an olympic sport. So yeah if I was a tennis player I'd go for a grand slam title. Screw the olympics, they suck anyway:p

Wayn77
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:48 PM
OUR Grand Slams of course..

Sorry to be a sourpuss, I agree with Kim - tennis isn't an Olympic sport.

The Kaz
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:49 PM
In Tennis
Grand Slam >>>> Olympics

In Athetics, Swimming etc
Olympics >>>> World Champs (equivalent of a Grand Slam)

The Kaz
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:49 PM
^^^

Many player would still kill to win Olympic Gold though :D

Tennisstar86
Mar 8th, 2008, 11:54 PM
In Tennis Grand slam.... maybe one day it'll be Olympic Gold... but right now the gold medals really have no history in tennis....

Dave.
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Some players (particularly the Chinese) may desire an Olympic gold more, but Grand Slams are the most important tournaments in the sport. I think the Olympics are one of the most important outside of the slams however.

Chris 84
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:04 AM
Slam every time.

In The Zone
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:04 AM
A Slam is better. But it's nice to say you have a Gold Medal. ;)

RJWCapriati
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:06 AM
To me, it would be a slam

Serenidad.
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:08 AM
A Slam is better.

But if you have slams a gold medal is nice to give you a little umpf when compared to other slam winners.

safinismine
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:09 AM
Grand Slam.

kwilliams
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Yeah, if people talk about great tennis players they talk about them having 2 FO titles and 1 Wimbledon title (or whatever) and they may or may not add that they won the Olympics or the YEC or give the number of titles they won in total. Slams definitely seem like the most important titles to be won.

spiritedenergy
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:15 AM
A Slam is better.

But if you have slams a gold medal is nice to give you a little umpf when compared to other slam winners.

think the same. Especially a golden slam

SvetaPleaseWin.
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:29 AM
a slam is much better-I think in most sports the Olympics is the best of the best but not in tennis

tennisbear7
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:56 AM
Venus Williams has said that her career highlight was winning the gold at 2000 Olympics.

So to her, the gold was worth more than the Wimbledon she had just won.

spencercarlos
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:08 AM
olympic gold of course. national hero and once per 4 years.
Sure Massu is an hero and considered among the best players because of his gold medal :lol:

Kworb
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:13 AM
It's equal for me

slamchamp
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:14 AM
A slam for sure

Matt01
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:20 AM
A Slam, obviously.

Winning Olympic Gold is more valuable than a winning a Tier I, though. I'd say that the Gold medal is about as important as the YEC. It's hard to compare, though...

kiwifan
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:29 AM
Olympic Gold is better than the Year End Championships but not quite as great as a Slam.

southpaw58
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:34 AM
A tennis prospect or someone growing up doesnt say I wanna win the olympics, they have dreams of holding a Wimbledon tropy or something like that.

Sure olympics is cool and REALLY great. but GS are much much better

BarsonlyOne
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:36 AM
i think it depends on the player themselves on how they percieve a slam versus an olympic gold. look at the russian players. they highly value the olympics, and are fighting tooth and nail to get on the team. lindsay davenport has said that playing in another olympics was another reason she came back this year. certain countries that perhaps arent as rich in economy or representation in any Olympic sport take pride even just participating in the event, and for whomever is representing that country feels more importance in representing their homeland.

but i do agree that as a whole, slams are more important, for now i think. tennis has only been an olympic event 5 times previously. there hasnt been enough history. but for every 4 years, the value of the Olympics has become greater.

frenchie
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:47 AM
Nastya said in the past that she would trade her GS title for a Gold medal without hesitation
That was the goal of her life:sad:

Unfortunately a male dwarf with herpes stood on her way:tape::tape::lol:

gmokb
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:06 AM
If I were a tennis player, I would be more excited about winning a Slam than Olympic gold. The Slams are what get counted in the history books.

DaMamaJama87
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:09 AM
A slam, by a mile. Olympic gold is the greatest achievement in most sports but for a pro sport like tennis it's not nearly as important. For one thing, the event was only added in 1988 so most of the greats never got a chance to even win such a medal making comparisons to history useless. On top of that, slams are always harder to win than the Olympics and more prestigious with greater prize money. The Olympics are a bit of an anomaly in tennis, it's hard to classify an Olympic medal but it certainly cannot compare to a slam.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:11 AM
There is no right or wrong answer to this one. Everyone has their own values. I think most people perceive a Grand Slam of being greater value than an Olympic gold medal. But that doesn't mean those that think otherwise are wrong.

Which would you rather have? A brand new car or an original pressing of the Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen" on A&M records? I think most people would take the car but not everyone. A few people would pay $20,000 for the record.

Most tennis players would take the Slam but not all of them. As Frenchie mentioned, I have no doubt Myskina would rather have had the Gold Medal. Miloslav Mecir also has said he wouldn't have traded his Gold for a Slam either. I believe him.

At the end of the day, everything in this world is valueless until we give it value. And as we are all different the values we give to different objects, experiences and achievements will be different too. We can only express our personnal opinions on which achievement we hold in higher regard but we should hopefully be able to do that while appreciating that our personnal values carry no more weight than the next persons.

The answer to the question is that they are both more valuable than the other one. It just depends on who you ask.

Mr_Molik
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:42 AM
if I were a female tennis player: slam > olympics > fed cup >YEC > tier 1

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:16 AM
Sure Massu is an hero and considered among the best players because of his gold medal :lol:

I trust you are aware that the Gold medal Massu won was the 1st Gold medal Chile had ever won in any sport. That victory was one that was celebrated throughout the whole of Chile. Nicolas Massu may not be one of the world's greatest tennis players but I doubt very many players have ever caused such excitement in the their home country by simply winning a match. Winning that medal turned Massu into a national hero. Had Massu won Roland Garros would that have caused that same scenes of jubilation in Chile that winning that Gold Medal did? Think about it. ;)

Mightymirza
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:32 AM
slam...

Mightymirza
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:34 AM
I trust you are aware that the Gold medal Massu won was the 1st Gold medal Chile had ever won in any sport. That victory was one that was celebrated throughout the whole of Chile. Nicolas Massu may not be one of the world's greatest tennis players but I doubt very many players have ever caused such excitement in the their home country by simply winning a match. Winning that medal turned Massu into a national hero. Had Massu won Roland Garros would that have caused that same scenes of jubilation in Chile that winning that Gold Medal did? Think about it. ;)

:lol: if mirza wins even a bronze, whole india will go berserk :lol: Anyways I would take wimbledon over olympic gold for madamoisle justine this year..Lets hope she wins something :tape:

clonesheep
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:35 AM
I trust you are aware that the Gold medal Massu won was the 1st Gold medal Chile had ever won in any sport. That victory was one that was celebrated throughout the whole of Chile. Nicolas Massu may not be one of the world's greatest tennis players but I doubt very many players have ever caused such excitement in the their home country by simply winning a match. Winning that medal turned Massu into a national hero. Had Massu won Roland Garros would that have caused that same scenes of jubilation in Chile that winning that Gold Medal did? Think about it. ;)

I agree that Massu's gold medal is special. BTW, the *first* gold medal Chile ever had was actually men's doubles gold by Massu and Gonzalez - Gonzalez shared the honor, too. Massu won the singles gold a day leter.

But it can also be argued that Massu won the gold medal because Oympics tennis tournaments are not as competitive as slams. Massu's opponent at olympic final was Mardy Fish. You will not have Mardy Fish as your opponent at a slam final.

spencercarlos
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:37 AM
I trust you are aware that the Gold medal Massu won was the 1st Gold medal Chile had ever won in any sport. That victory was one that was celebrated throughout the whole of Chile. Nicolas Massu may not be one of the world's greatest tennis players but I doubt very many players have ever caused such excitement in the their home country by simply winning a match. Winning that medal turned Massu into a national hero. Had Massu won Roland Garros would that have caused that same scenes of jubilation in Chile that winning that Gold Medal did? Think about it. ;)
He is maybe an hero in his country, but tennis wise Massu will NOT be remmembered unless he wins a Slam not the Olympics.

Even Rios will be remmembered more than Massu.

Ryan
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:39 AM
Slams are worth a ton more. Not every player has had the chance to play for the Olympic Gold, and the fields aren't as good. No real contest, but some players might like to win a gold more.

kinglear
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:41 AM
Definitely a slam. You go into the history books with a slam. Olympic Gold definitely beefs up the resume, but if it's all you have, it's much easier to dismiss than if you only win a slam.

Agreed. If Olympic medals were equal to Grand Slams, Dementieva would be regarded much higher. :rolleyes: But I hope she does win one. :)

clonesheep
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:44 AM
For professional sports olympic gold medals are not the most important. Consider world's biggest pro sports:

Basketball - Most NBA players don't bother play olympics.

Baseball - Saem as basketball. In fact, baseball will be cancelled as an event in the next olympics after Beijing.

Football (soccor) - World Cup is far more important than olympics.

Ice hockey - An olympic gold carries some weight here, but again, not all top players participates in the olympics.

Tennis - Grand slams are more important.

Golf, car racing, cricket - Not even an olympic event.

LudwigDvorak
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:46 AM
If I were a tennis player, the slams would rank like this for me:
Paris
Wimbledon (or this first then Paris)
Flushing Meadows
Melbourne

Let's just say I'd rather get an olympic gold than AO. Not the case for the other three though. I dunno, I think an olympic medal is really special--but in tennis the slams are more important, each of them. I just don't like AO.

tonybotz
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:08 AM
olympic gold might have great personal value, in terms of tennis history, it's a footnote.

brayster87
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:25 AM
If I were a tennis player, the slams would rank like this for me:
Paris
Wimbledon (or this first then Paris)
Flushing Meadows
Melbourne

Let's just say I'd rather get an olympic gold than AO. Not the case for the other three though. I dunno, I think an olympic medal is really special--but in tennis the slams are more important, each of them. I just don't like AO.

You are a joke. You just say Paris is the best because you are biased, that's all. Wimbledon is by far the best GS to win.

Anyway, winning Wimbledon is better than an Olympic gold but I would rather win an Olympic gold than win the other three Grand Slams. They just don't mean as much as Wimbledon does...

lightningquick
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:29 AM
You are a joke. You just say Paris is the best because you are biased, that's all. Wimbledon is by far the best GS to win.

Anyway, winning Wimbledon is better than an Olympic gold but I would rather win an Olympic gold than win the other three Grand Slams. They just don't mean as much as Wimbledon does...

It's his/her opinion, what makes you think he/she is biased?? :confused:

LudwigDvorak
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:29 AM
You are a joke. You just say Paris is the best because you are biased, that's all. Wimbledon is by far the best GS to win.


??? Oh, you must believe my flag. I'm American. Anyway.

Yeah I'm biased because I said if I were a tennis player, it'd be the one I want to win most. My opinion on this subject has no basis on other people's opinions. Clay is my favorite surface and I just love the slam. And if you actually read my post I put after Wimbledon, in more explicit terms, "Paris and Wimbledon are nearly equal for me, so they are interchangeable."

So Disrespectful
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:30 AM
Doesn't Nicolas Massu have a gold medal? People will never remember him.

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:33 AM
For professional sports olympic gold medals are not the most important. Consider world's biggest pro sports:

Basketball - Most NBA players don't bother play olympics.

Baseball - Saem as basketball. In fact, baseball will be cancelled as an event in the next olympics after Beijing.

Football (soccor) - World Cup is far more important than olympics.

Ice hockey - An olympic gold carries some weight here, but again, not all top players participates in the olympics.

Tennis - Grand slams are more important.

Golf, car racing, cricket - Not even an olympic event.

But see... basketball and baseball dont really count because baseball and basketball were pretty much dominated by american sports, until recently (baseball still is cause baseball is an american sport.....)so they also really have no historical background and the american team is expected to win...(or was in the case of basketball....

Of course The world cup is the biggest sporting aevent there is.... so no contest... and Id say a gold in Ice hockey is the tops.... IMO...

Cp6uja
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:57 AM
I agree in generaly that for players is Grand Slam more valuable title... but in this thread discussions Olympic gold is very underrated! BTW dont forget that for many of tennis fans Olympic gold is more important and also in WTA case for companies like Nike, Adidas...etc Olympic tennis tournament is more important than slams (IMO) and i will try to explain why is for WTA that so important but not in ATP case. Also, Olympic gold in doubles competition is by far more prestigues than any slam title in doubles b/c Olympic gold is Olympic gold for your country and GS title in doubles is nothing special in comparation with singles titles.

I notice one for tennis big paradox - Womans Olympic tournament is always more prestiguos than mans (and also more competetive so far). Reason for that is in fact that womans tennis players is by far biggest superstars in womans sports and in mans competition this is not case (for example only USA basketball team have more sports "superstars" than whole ATP). That is reason why big companies like i already say give highest priority to OG-WTA part (and especialy when host is some new big market like in China case).

One more thing - players with big number of slam titles like Graf for example will never change Olympic gold for any slam title so i dont have reason to not belive Venus which reach 4 Wimbledons and 2 USO's that OG title is her favorite career title. If we look former WTA OG champions in all cases we have reason to belive that OG gold have big value and special place for all that players and maybe not less than some of theys slam titles:


1988 Steffi Graf - She have 22 GS titles and only one OG gold and also she is first tennis Olympic Gold champion in modern era and that is also special achivment (+ she complete golden slam in 1988 with 4GS+OG with this gold)

1992 Jennifer Capriati - She reach OG gold at 16, about 10 years before her first slam title... without this title i doubt that she will ever comeback to tennis after that hard career crisis and also she have b/c this gold some credits in USA - in all other cases i think that all this drags and other scandals will destroyed chances for give some player 2nd chance.

1996 Lindsay Davenport - Like Capriati she reach this gold before her first slam title and before she reach #1 and one more reason why this title is for sure must be very special for Davenport: She reach this gold at home, in USA (Atlanta). Tennis is of course very popular in USA but in that time after several years of total non-USA domination at slams (Graf, YUG-Seles, ASV, Sabatini...) this OG title at home court for Americans tennis fans is more valuable than probably any slam title from previous "boring" Navratilova/Evert era with atleast 3 USA GS titles per season year by year.

2000 Venus Williams - If she says that OG is her favorite title why not belive her. Wimbledon title is most prestigues in tennis but she have 4... Also, dont forget that singles titles in tennis is much much much more prestigues than doubles GS titles but when we talking about Olympic gold in doubles difference is not so big - and Venus is double Olympic champion from Sydnay (another reason why she is so proud on that tournament - she reach actualy two golds).

2004 Justine Henin - She reach this gold in midle of hardest crisis in her career (big health problems). Also she is champion from smallest country which ever have WTA OG champion and that garantee her "national hero" status. If i wrong, please posters from Belgium demand me but in this country OG is even more important event than in other countries, especialy since Jacques Rogge is named for IOC president - and since president IOC is from Belgum Justine is only Gold medalist from Belgium (maybe only medalist?). How important for her all this "Olympic thing" proof is that despite she is still active athlete she agree to be candidate (elections will be in Beijing for 8 years mandate) for very important IOC athletes' commission and 3 of 30 nominated candidates is from WTA! (Henin, Mauresmo and ASV).

2008 An


TO BE CONTINUE...

Geisha
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:24 AM
I don't know...I mean, I think Grand Slams are better, but not everybody can play the Olympics. - YOU HAVE TO BE CHOSEN. If you aren't in the top three or whatever, you don't play. It's not like everyone in the Top 100 automatically gets in.

mankind
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:25 AM
Grand Slam. Are we even arguing this point?

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:44 AM
I agree in generaly that for players is Grand Slam more valuable title... but in this thread discussions Olympic gold is very underrated! BTW dont forget that for many of tennis fans Olympic gold is more important and also in WTA case for companies like Nike, Adidas...etc Olympic tennis tournament is more important than slams (IMO) and i will try to explain why is for WTA that so important but not in ATP case. Also, Olympic gold in doubles competition is by far more prestigues than any slam title in doubles b/c Olympic gold is Olympic gold for your country and GS title in doubles is nothing special in comparation with singles titles.

I notice one for tennis big paradox - Womans Olympic tournament is always more prestiguos than mans (and also more competetive so far). Reason for that is in fact that womans tennis players is by far biggest superstars in womans sports and in mans competition this is not case (for example only USA basketball team have more sports "superstars" than whole ATP). That is reason why big companies like i already say give highest priority to OG-WTA part (and especialy when host is some new big market like in China case).

One more thing - players with big number of slam titles like Graf for example will never change Olympic gold for any slam title so i dont have reason to not belive Venus which reach 4 Wimbledons and 2 USO's that OG title is her favorite career title. If we look former WTA OG champions in all cases we have reason to belive that OG gold have big value and special place for all that players and maybe not less than some of theys slam titles:


1988 Steffi Graf - She have 22 GS titles and only one OG gold and also she is first tennis Olympic Gold champion in modern era and that is also special achivment (+ she complete golden slam in 1988 with 4GS+OG with this gold)

1992 Jennifer Capriati - She reach OG gold at 16, about 10 years before her first slam title... without this title i doubt that she will ever comeback to tennis after that hard career crisis and also she have b/c this gold some credits in USA - in all other cases i think that all this drags and other scandals will destroyed chances for give some player 2nd chance.

1996 Lindsay Davenport - Like Capriati she reach this gold before her first slam title and before she reach #1 and one more reason why this title is for sure must be very special for Davenport: She reach this gold at home, in USA (Atlanta). Tennis is of course very popular in USA but in that time after several years of total non-USA domination at slams (Graf, YUG-Seles, ASV, Sabatini...) this OG title at home court for Americans tennis fans is more valuable than probably any slam title from previous "boring" Navratilova/Evert era with atleast 3 USA GS titles per season year by year.

2000 Venus Williams - If she says that OG is her favorite title why not belive her. Wimbledon title is most prestigues in tennis but she have 4... Also, dont forget that singles titles in tennis is much much much more prestigues than doubles GS titles but when we talking about Olympic gold in doubles difference is not so big - and Venus is double Olympic champion from Sydnay (another reason why she is so proud on that tournament - she reach actualy two golds).

2004 Justine Henin - She reach this gold in midle of hardest crisis in her career (big health problems). Also she is champion from smallest country which ever have WTA OG champion and that garantee her "national hero" status. If i wrong, please posters from Belgium demand me but in this country OG is even more important event than in other countries, especialy since Jacques Rogge is named for IOC president - and since president IOC is from Belgum Justine is only Gold medalist from Belgium (maybe only medalist?). How important for her all this "Olympic thing" proof is that despite she is still active athlete she agree to be candidate (elections will be in Beijing for 8 years mandate) for very important IOC athletes' commission and 3 of 30 nominated candidates is from WTA! (Henin, Mauresmo and ASV).

2008 An


TO BE CONTINUE...

Venus hasnt said the Olympics was her fav in a while... anyone who saw her celebration after 05 Wimbledon would say that is her fav title/ Highlight... She stated she sleeps with that title beside her bed....

Cp6uja
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:04 AM
Venus hasnt said the Olympics was her fav in a while... anyone who saw her celebration after 05 Wimbledon would say that is her fav title/ Highlight... She stated she sleeps with that title beside her bed....BTW she give that statement before 2005... but for my point is enough if she have atleast one GS title which for her dont have bigger value than Olympic 2000 Sydney tournament where she reach 2 Olympic golds and which is highest point of her career for sure b/c she won before that OG final about 30 matches in the row (including Wimbledon and USO titles)... never before or never after she not feeling herself like (worlds) dominant tennis player like in Sydnay. Never.

cardio
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:57 AM
Olympics in tennis is mickeymouse event. It is just a little bonus for great players like Graf,Davenport, Capriati or Agassi and consolation prize for players who were`nt able to win slams(Rosset,Massu,) . Olympic Gold in tennis does not make you a legend , winning slams does. I think it is even less important than YEC . Prestige of Olympic tennis will probably increase in 2012 , when tournament is in Wimbledon. It is unique opportunity for top players to win on Wimbledon Centre court twice in one year.

Ballbasher
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:01 AM
Grand Slam>Olympics>YEC (Which is more equivalent to World Champs in my eyes)

Wayn77
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:11 AM
I guess we are blessed in our favourite sport.

4 mini World Cup's every year (the Grand Slams) - all massively important, steeped in history and prestige. I don't buy the bullshit of one being better than the other, they are all equal. Add to that the celebration of the Year End Championships (despite this years mediocrity). The 5 big touneys - that's more than enough for me.

The contrived Olympic championship doesn't even come close to these.

QUEENLINDSAY
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:15 AM
I think they are equal!
Slams = Olympic Gold
its like a fifth slam every 4 years.

Calypso
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:26 AM
Grand Slam for me.
All of tennis rotates around the 4 big ones. Slam winners are remembered more than Olympic champs.
Plus you have to wait 4 friggin years before you get a chance to compete in the Olympics again.

Boreas
Mar 9th, 2008, 10:20 AM
Olympic gold

Lindsayfan32
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:43 AM
^^^

Many player would still kill to win Olympic Gold though :D

Lindsay playing three fed cup ties and hopefully the olympics. No tennis player has won a gold medal twice.

die_wahrheit
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:10 PM
He is maybe an hero in his country, but tennis wise Massu will NOT be remmembered unless he wins a Slam not the Olympics.

Even Rios will be remmembered more than Massu.

That's nonsense,
it makes no real difference between Massu and Gaudio.
Rios was a world class player for some years, that's a difference.

Destiny
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:15 PM
Slams are better

Olypmics are good but you can do without it :lol:

mapaliey
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:15 PM
tennis:
Gs >>>>>>>>

badminton
OG >>>>>>>>

die_wahrheit
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:42 PM
Doesn't Nicolas Massu have a gold medal? People will never remember him.

he will be remembered as Costa, Gaudio and such guys.


And, he is the only living (male) two-times Olympic champion in tennis.
That makes him special.

alex.stef
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:56 PM
I think any tennis player would prefer a GS title to an Olympic Gold medal.
look at federer, he said he doesn't think he will participate at the Olympics, but he didn't miss a GS in years

ce
Mar 9th, 2008, 12:56 PM
slam
but it should be gold

disco_rage
Mar 9th, 2008, 01:58 PM
Depends where you are from i guess. Some countries put Olympics before Grand Slams, some Grand Slams before Olympics...

Cp6uja
Mar 9th, 2008, 02:21 PM
he will be remembered as Costa, Gaudio and such guys.


And, he is the only living (male) two-times Olympic champion in tennis.
That makes him special.WTA Olympic Games tournament have more prestige than ATP Olympic Games tournament b/c WTA players is biggest stars in womans sport and ATP Olympic tournament is only one of several mans competetive events at OG and nothing else. That is reason why womens OG winners so far is only players from "Hall of Fame" level (Graf, Capriati, Davenport, Venus W., Henin) and in mans competition except "Hall of Fame" Agassi, and 2GS winner and former #1 Kafelnikov - all other winners is solid TOP10 players which never reach GS title (Mecir, Rosset, Massu)... and only reason why great player like Agassi waste his time at sh*ty tournament like ATP/MANS Olympics in 1996 is b/c Atlanta/USA is host for that year, and nothing else.

But like i already notice and explain reasons - prestige of WTA/WOMENS Olympic tennis tournament is very close with prestige of WTA slams and prestige of Doubles OG tournament (for mans and womans both) is even more prestige than any Doubles tournament (including slams) despite fact of weak competition (about 80% of best worlds doubles is players from different countries) b/c even bronze medal from Olympic will make from doubles players bigger "national heroes" than any GS title.

All malicious comments about Tennis Olympic tournament in this thread works only when we talking about ATP singles OG competition, but is nonsense when we speaking about WTA or doubles part.

Dave.
Mar 9th, 2008, 03:05 PM
But like i already notice and explain reasons - prestige of WTA/WOMENS Olympic tennis tournament is very close with prestige of WTA slams and prestige of Doubles OG tournament (for mans and womans both) is even more prestige than any Doubles tournament (including slams) despite fact of weak competition (about 80% of best worlds doubles is players from different countries) b/c even bronze medal from Olympic will make from doubles players bigger "national heroes" than any GS title.



Perhaps the Olympics will help top doubles players be remembered more, but the Slams are generally still more important. A Grand Slam doubles title is a huge achievement (even if it isn't as noticed as in singles). It doesn't matter who will be remembered, it matters what they achieved (Kournikova will be remembered, but she didn't achieve as much as Stubbs, who will probably not be remembered outside the tennis world).

Anyway, in the past, alot of the top doubles players were already well known, so winning an Olympic Gold wouldn't have changed things for them much.

Cp6uja
Mar 9th, 2008, 04:50 PM
Perhaps the Olympics will help top doubles players be remembered more, but the Slams are generally still more important. A Grand Slam doubles title is a huge achievement (even if it isn't as noticed as in singles). It doesn't matter who will be remembered, it matters what they achieved (Kournikova will be remembered, but she didn't achieve as much as Stubbs, who will probably not be remembered outside the tennis world).

Anyway, in the past, alot of the top doubles players were already well known, so winning an Olympic Gold wouldn't have changed things for them much.First slam title for our country since Seles is not Novak Djokovic's AO/08 title - it's reach our best doubles player Nenad Zimonjic when won Wimbledon 2004, but even in small country like Serbia nobody realy care about that especialy if we compare that when Novak won AO in singles this year or even with RU+2SF achivment in singles from RG last season for Serbia. But if Zimonjic (with Djokovic or Tipsarevic) reach Olympic gold in Beijing - and for about 8M big country every OG gold is very big achivement he will be some kind of "national hero" here no doubt. Ask Chinese members here which title is more important for them - Li/Sun Athens gold or any GS doubles title? I'm sure that for example very good ATP doubles from India or Israel will be more happy even maybe with bronze medal from Beijing than with some 2008 GS title (i'm not joke) and if they reach gold can you even image how big "national heroes" they will be in eyes of theys compatriots? Same thing if some of Chinese WTA doubles will reach gold at home soil... You mentonied Stubbs and i'm ready to bet that she and Stosur is ready to change one of theys slam titles for Beijing gold without thinking!

Also for Olympic title both players will reach after that more money from ads from they sponsors than money prize which they reach for GS title - in singles you dont have that efect (singles GS prizes is too big), but still we must notice big difference between WTA and ATP Olympic tournament. Like i already says in one of previous posts in this thread only US Olympic basketball team have more global sports "superstars" than whole ATP... but at summer Olympic games any discipline in womans sports is not ready to compare with WTA stars... nobody... and that is reason why is for example for Nike more important to see Maria Sharapova at Beijing than at any other tennis tournament in next 4 years. Same thing for Adidas and Henin/Ivanovic, for Sisters, Davenport, Mauresmo... and other WTA stars with global recognations. And that make difference between WTA and ATP Olympic tournament (in singles) - for WTA girls is very important and for ATP players is "who cares" in comparation with slams.

Dave.
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:29 PM
First slam title for our country since Seles is not Novak Djokovic's AO/08 title - it's reach our best doubles player Nenad Zimonjic when won Wimbledon 2004, but even in small country like Serbia nobody realy care about that especialy if we compare that when Novak won AO in singles this year or even with RU+2SF achivment in singles from RG last season for Serbia. But if Zimonjic (with Djokovic or Tipsarevic) reach Olympic gold in Beijing - and for about 8M big country every OG gold is very big achivement he will be some kind of "national hero" here no doubt. Ask Chinese members here which title is more important for them - Li/Sun Athens gold or any GS doubles title? I'm sure that for example very good ATP doubles from India or Israel will be more happy even maybe with bronze medal from Beijing than with some 2008 GS title (i'm not joke) and if they reach gold can you even image how big "national heroes" they will be in eyes of theys compatriots? Same thing if some of Chinese WTA doubles will reach gold at home soil... You mentonied Stubbs and i'm ready to bet that she and Stosur is ready to change one of theys slam titles for Beijing gold without thinking!

Also for Olympic title both players will reach after that more money from ads from they sponsors than money prize which they reach for GS title - in singles you dont have that efect (singles GS prizes is too big), but still we must notice big difference between WTA and ATP Olympic tournament. Like i already says in one of previous posts in this thread only US Olympic basketball team have more global sports "superstars" than whole ATP... but at summer Olympic games any discipline in womans sports is not ready to compare with WTA stars... nobody... and that is reason why is for example for Nike more important to see Maria Sharapova at Beijing than at any other tennis tournament in next 4 years. Same thing for Adidas and Henin/Ivanovic, for Sisters, Davenport, Mauresmo... and other WTA stars with global recognations. And that make difference between WTA and ATP Olympic tournament (in singles) - for WTA girls is very important and for ATP players is "who cares" in comparation with slams.

I understand that many of the top doubles players would want gold medals because of the fame and money that surrounds it, but in terms of tennis achievements, grand slams are more important. It doesn't matter if Li/Sun are more famous in China because of their medal, Yan/Zheng are still greater players because they won a slam (in fact they won 2). So yes, perhaps for fame and money the Olympics are better, but when you are measuring the greatest players of all time, you have to look at the slams ahead of any other tournament.

Mina Vagante
Mar 9th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Slams, for sure :)

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:33 PM
Since tennis was not an Olympic sport for so many years, many of the greatest champions of the sport had no chance to participate. Therefore, I feel that the GS's hold more weight, since most players of note have had a chance to play at least some of the slams.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:36 PM
By the way, isn't Cara Black considered a (if not the) top players in women's doubles, yet isn't there a very real possibility that she won't be able to participate in the Olympics because her country can't field a team according to Olympic rules? If the best players can't play, then the event looses some of its importance.

SharapovaFan16
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:37 PM
It depends on how the athlete looks at it. Which do they consider most important?

I mean Olympic Gold is Olympic Gold. That's something that will live with you forever. Personally I'd rather be talked about as an Olympic Gold Medalist than say Wimbledon Champion. To each their own, but I think this is sort of a stupid question. OG hands down people. Gold medal is also way way way more important, by far!

John.
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:38 PM
A Slam for sure

CR3WLFC
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:48 PM
it depends on the players

if you already wone all the 4 slams i think you want the gold medal more then a other slam.....

but i would rather have 10 slams titles then 8 slams and 2 golds

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Nastya said in the past that she would trade her GS title for a Gold medal without hesitation
That was the goal of her life:sad:


Sorry, but that just confirms Myskina is not very smart person. She said many dumb things in her interview/TV appearances and it was one of them.
Had she not won Roland Garros she would have been a nobody in the tennis history much like Massu. It's a pity she doesn't understand this.

die_wahrheit
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:50 PM
WTA Olympic Games tournament have more prestige than ATP Olympic Games tournament b/c WTA players is biggest stars in womans sport and ATP Olympic tournament is only one of several mans competetive events at OG and nothing else. That is reason why womens OG winners so far is only players from "Hall of Fame" level (Graf, Capriati, Davenport, Venus W., Henin) and in mans competition except "Hall of Fame" Agassi, and 2GS winner and former #1 Kafelnikov - all other winners is solid TOP10 players which never reach GS title (Mecir, Rosset, Massu)... and only reason why great player like Agassi waste his time at sh*ty tournament like ATP/MANS Olympics in 1996 is b/c Atlanta/USA is host for that year, and nothing else.

But like i already notice and explain reasons - prestige of WTA/WOMENS Olympic tennis tournament is very close with prestige of WTA slams and prestige of Doubles OG tournament (for mans and womans both) is even more prestige than any Doubles tournament (including slams) despite fact of weak competition (about 80% of best worlds doubles is players from different countries) b/c even bronze medal from Olympic will make from doubles players bigger "national heroes" than any GS title.

All malicious comments about Tennis Olympic tournament in this thread works only when we talking about ATP singles OG competition, but is nonsense when we speaking about WTA or doubles part.

It's obvious that Olympic gold medail and if it is in doubles is much more worth than one or two... or even five double slams.

Male Olympic champions are not necessarily the greatest players. Not of hall-of-fame, but of French Open quality .
Not the biggest, but of course a big thing to win.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Sorry, but that just confirms Myskina is not very smart person. She said many dumb things in her interview/TV appearances and it was one of them.
Had she not won Roland Garros she would have been a nobody in the tennis history much like Massu. It's a pity she doesn't understand this.

Why does she have to think the way you think? Is this belief of hers causing her any suffering? I don't see any reason to feel sorry for her because of what she believes. I do think she realises that winning RG was a big achievement.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:56 PM
it depends on the players

if you already wone all the 4 slams i think you want the gold medal more then a other slam.....

but i would rather have 10 slams titles then 8 slams and 2 golds

Thats fine. I would rather have 8 slams and 2 golds. :p

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Why does she have to think the way you think? Is this belief of hers causing her any suffering? I don't see any reason to feel sorry for her because of what she believes. I do think she realises that winning RG was a big achievement.

In this case it's a common sense. Just common sense.
In tennis GS >>> Olympics. Period.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:07 PM
In this case it's a common sense. Just common sense.
In tennis GS >>> Olympics. Period.

And those who disagree are to be pitied?

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:09 PM
And those who disagree are to be pitied?

Yes, those who keep fooling themselves and making stupid statements are.

irinska
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:16 PM
Players like Roger and Justine have said that they might skip the Olimpic games, you can't hear them talking such thing of any GS.
For me tennis doesn't have a place at the Olimpic games at all, because it's not the most important event for the players. For every other athlete it's the peak of his career.

Rik.
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:17 PM
in tennis a grand slam for sure :)

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Yes, those who keep fooling themselves and making stupid statements are.

Look, I have no problem with anyone who personally regards Grand Slams to be of more worth than Olympic Gold medals for tennis players. Most tennis fans and tennis players think the same. I myself do not feel strongly about it one way or the other.

I am however offended at the attitude that anyone that does not accept this worldview is wrong. I simply do not sit comfortably with an attitude that says people must all think the same thing. If some tennis players feel an Olympic Gold is more important to them than a Grand Slam who I'm I to tell them they are wrong? We all have our own individual values. Different things matter to different people. I say thank goodness for that. I wonder if you have the same Totalitarian views about other things such as Religion, birth control etc. :shrug:

The Daviator
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:36 PM
WTA Olympic Games tournament have more prestige than ATP Olympic Games tournament b/c WTA players is biggest stars in womans sport and ATP Olympic tournament is only one of several mans competetive events at OG and nothing else. That is reason why womens OG winners so far is only players from "Hall of Fame" level (Graf, Capriati, Davenport, Venus W., Henin) and in mans competition except "Hall of Fame" Agassi, and 2GS winner and former #1 Kafelnikov - all other winners is solid TOP10 players which never reach GS title (Mecir, Rosset, Massu)... and only reason why great player like Agassi waste his time at sh*ty tournament like ATP/MANS Olympics in 1996 is b/c Atlanta/USA is host for that year, and nothing else.

But like i already notice and explain reasons - prestige of WTA/WOMENS Olympic tennis tournament is very close with prestige of WTA slams and prestige of Doubles OG tournament (for mans and womans both) is even more prestige than any Doubles tournament (including slams) despite fact of weak competition (about 80% of best worlds doubles is players from different countries) b/c even bronze medal from Olympic will make from doubles players bigger "national heroes" than any GS title.

All malicious comments about Tennis Olympic tournament in this thread works only when we talking about ATP singles OG competition, but is nonsense when we speaking about WTA or doubles part.

The reason why the likes of Massu, Rosset and Mecir won isn't because the OG in ATP is less important, it's because there's far more depth in men's tennis than in women's, virtually every Slam in WTA is won by a 'superstar', Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova, etc. and a few years ago it was Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, etc. In men's tennis, Johansson wins a Slam, Costa and Gaudio win Slams, people like Baghdatis and Tsonga come close, and that's what's happened at the Olympics.

Federer and Nadal have said that winning OG is their dream, and I'm sure Djokovic would say the same, so it means the same as a competitive event in Men's and women's tennis, as a commercial event it does mean more in the women's, but also in the men's too, I mean name me one person who will be at the Olympics in Beijing in men's sport that's bigger than Federer?

As for the topic, it depends, I'd say the people of Serbia would care much more if Ivanovic won OG than RG for example, it's clear that it means a huge amount to the players, far more than an AMS or a Tier I, but I would place it below the Slams.

The one difference is doubles, I really don't care much for doubles at all :lol: But I will in Beijing since a medal is on the line :p

The Daviator
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Players like Roger and Justine have said that they might skip the Olimpic games, you can't hear them talking such thing of any GS.
For me tennis doesn't have a place at the Olimpic games at all, because it's not the most important event for the players. For every other athlete it's the peak of his career.

Roger never said he'd skip it, he said he didn't want to stay in the Olympic village and he'd maybe skip that part :p

Henin already has a gold medal.

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Look, I have no problem with anyone who personally regards Grand Slams to be of more worth than Olympic Gold medals for tennis players. Most tennis fans and tennis players think the same. I myself do not feel strongly about it one way or the other.

I am however offended at the attitude that anyone that does not accept this worldview is wrong. I simply do not sit comfortably with an attitude that says people must all think the same thing. If some tennis players feel an Olympic Gold is more important to them than a Grand Slam who I'm I to tell them they are wrong? We all have our own individual values. Different things matter to different people. I say thank goodness for that. I wonder if you have the same Totalitarian views about other things such as Religion, birth control etc. :shrug:

I don't know if you are being serious here...
Totalitarian views?! :tape: :lol:

2 x 2 = 4 regardless of person's individual values.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:40 PM
Personally I'd rather be talked about as an Olympic Gold Medalist than say Wimbledon Champion.

:help::tape::lol:

cellophane
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:45 PM
I don't know if you are being serious here...
Totalitarian views?! :tape: :lol:

2 x 2 = 4 regardless of person's individual values.

When Myskina says that an Olympic Gold is more important to her, surely you understand that she is talking about subjective value, not objective. :scratch: At any rate,as far as tennis history, I would think a slam is a lot more important, because the Olympics don't always have the best fields in tennis and the history, so I guess you can consider that as a measure of objectivity if a lot of people think so (which they do), but at the same time I don't think there is a *clear* value that can be put on the Olympics to say it's much less prestigeous.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:46 PM
I don't know if you are being serious here...
Totalitarian views?! :tape: :lol:

2 x 2 = 4 regardless of person's individual values.

When a person starts saying their opinions are right and there is no room for opposing viewpoints I call that totalitarian thinking. But as you see this matter as one of fact rather than opinion I can see why you have trouble with this. :shrug:

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:48 PM
When Myskina says that an Olympic Gold is more important to her, surely you understand that she is talking about subjective value, not objective. :scratch: At any rate,as far as tennis history, I would think a slam is more important, because the Olympics don't always have the best fields in tennis, so I guess you can consider that as a measure of objectivity if a lot of people think so (which they do), but at the same time I don't think there is a *clear* value that can be put on the Olympics to say it's much less prestigeous.

Exactly. :yeah:

Yu-gi
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:53 PM
1.Wimbeldon
2.Olympics
3.Other Grand Slams

cellophane
Mar 9th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I think the Olympics have prestige as a sports event in general, not specifically as a tennis event...these 2 things aren't really the same. The fields at the Olympics can be kind of sucky, and also not everyone gets to play there.

Is there a break in between the events for tennis at the Olympics this year and the US Open?

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:03 PM
When a person starts saying their opinions are right and there is no room for opposing viewpoints I call that totalitarian thinking. But as you see this matter as one of fact rather than opinion I can see why you have trouble with this. :shrug:

Yes, 2 x 2 = 4 and there is no room for opposing veiwpoints.

I have trouble with the person who makes statements. You know, I'm getting more and more disappointed in Myskina. Even when being her fan I realised she was not the brightest mind out there but her weak attempts of becoming a journalist and pathetic "articles" in which she always dismisses players she doesn't like (Sharapova, Henin, Jankovic) and praises players she likes (Safina, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic) makes me tired.
And several months ago you could not even hide from her "analysis" and "deep thoughts" about human life as she was basically everywhere on TV and press. Thanks god she got pregnant...

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Is there a break in between the events for tennis at the Olympics this year and the US Open?

August 11 - Olympics
August 18 - New Haven
August 25 - US Open

saint2
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:08 PM
Grand Slam give more points so is more important, but...usually GS final stages are so booring...:yawn:

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:13 PM
Sorry, but that just confirms Myskina is not very smart person. She said many dumb things in her interview/TV appearances and it was one of them.
Had she not won Roland Garros she would have been a nobody in the tennis history much like Massu. It's a pity she doesn't understand this.

Y? srry Olympic Gold puts her in the same boat historically as being a one slam wonder IMO.... Had she won the Olympics shed be the first russian to do so, just as she is the first russian to win a Grand Slam....
In Ten years time people will have to think HARD as to who won the FO2004, chances are many people will think of Sharapova as the first Russian who did anything great... In Myskina's case Olympic Gold = GS based on shes only got 1...

IF you look at it like this...its easy for Venus or Henin to like their medals better cause theyve got multiple GS....and only 1 gold, and the chance to get another is slim... its one thing to trade a GS for a gold when you've got others...
Players like Roger and Justine have said that they might skip the Olimpic games, you can't hear them talking such thing of any GS.
For me tennis doesn't have a place at the Olimpic games at all, because it's not the most important event for the players. For every other athlete it's the peak of his career.

Henin might skip it because of the air quality in china, shes got breathing problems, so you cant blame her.... this olympics seems like its gonna be poorly run...

And Federer is a pompous ***... his embarrassing loss at 04 Olympics of course he looks down on them.... he cant stand to lose.

mckyle.
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:18 PM
I guess it depends on how nationalistic you are.

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:20 PM
Yes, 2 x 2 = 4 and there is no room for opposing veiwpoints.

I have trouble with the person who makes statements. You know, I'm getting more and more disappointed in Myskina. Even when being her fan I realised she was not the brightest mind out there but her weak attempts of becoming a journalist and pathetic "articles" in which she always dismisses players she doesn't like (Sharapova, Henin, Jankovic) and praises players she likes (Safina, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic) makes me tired.
And several months ago you could not even hide from her "analysis" and "deep thoughts" about human life as she was basically everywhere on TV and press. Thanks god she got pregnant...

Err...regarding Myskina's efforts as a journalist, not speaking Russian I couldn't really comment. But it does sound like you are suggesting, and please correct me if I am wrong, that she is displaying a dogmatic and bias tone in her writing that is not to your liking. Of course you personally would never make such dogmatic and bias statements yourself...

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:26 PM
Err...regarding Myskina's efforts as a journalist, not speaking Russian I couldn't really comment. But it does sound like you are suggesting, and please correct me if I am wrong, that she is displaying a dogmatic and bias tone in her writing that is not to your liking. Of course you personally would never make such dogmatic and bias statements yourself...

I'm not pretending to be unbiased, I'm not pretending to be a journalist. That's the difference.
In all my bias I would never claim "Safina and Petrova have as big chance to win Australian Open as Sharapova". And Myskina said this before AO.

Anyway, I quit the thread.

cellophane
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:29 PM
I'm not pretending to be unbiased, I'm not pretending to be a journalist. That's the difference.
In all my bias I would never claim "Safina and Petrova have as big chance to win Australian Open as Sharapova". And Myskina said this before AO.

Anyway, I quit the thread.

:spit:

She doesn't sound any more different than a nationalistic headline in a Russian newspaper from any other journalist.

I don't really see what it has to do with her thinking the Olympics are more important. :shrug:

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:36 PM
I'm not pretending to be unbiased, I'm not pretending to be a journalist. That's the difference.
In all my bias I would never claim "Safina and Petrova have as big chance to win Australian Open as Sharapova". And Myskina said this before AO.

Anyway, I quit the thread.

Well for what it's worth I would agree that this was very silly thing for her to say. And yes as you say you are not pretending to be a journalist.

Also to your credit I must say you have expressed your opinions strongly and clearly (which is a good thing) as you almost always do. I would just add that it's is a shame you don't leave a little bit more room for opposing thought but such is life. :shrug:

venus_rulez
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:39 PM
.
In all my bias I would never claim "Safina and Petrova have as big chance to win Australian Open as Sharapova". And Myskina said this before AO.

Wow, she must have been on something good.

dya74
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:45 PM
if you already are a GS winner, when talking about you, people will say: She/he's the OLympics champion, too!
if you're not, nobody will really care if you get an Olynpic Gold

Tennisstar86
Mar 9th, 2008, 08:48 PM
if you already are a GS winner, when talking about you, people will say: She/he's the OLympics champion, too!
if you're not, nobody will really care if you get an Olynpic Gold

I disagree with that.... If you only have 1 GS chances are you wont be in the conversation... If you only have 1 Olympic Gold chances are you wont be in the conversation..... So chances are you'll have both....The Gold is like icing on the cake....

however its clear for doubles its the tops.. Look at Mary Joe.... they talk about her gold in doubles all the time....

LeonHart
Mar 9th, 2008, 09:42 PM
There's more history involved in the Grandslams. You look back and see all the greats that have won them. You look back at who as won the olympics...and it's not as prestigious.

cardio
Mar 9th, 2008, 09:48 PM
I think the Olympics have prestige as a sports event in general, not specifically as a tennis event...these 2 things aren't really the same. The fields at the Olympics can be kind of sucky, and also not everyone gets to play there.

Is there a break in between the events for tennis at the Olympics this year and the US Open?

No, there is not. In fact , Cincinnati tier III will start Aug.11, on same week as Olympic tournament, New Haven tier II next week and USO 2 weeks later
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/tournaments/
I guess every top player wants to be at 100% in USO, so they have to make a choice : 1) to take Olympics easy or skip it
2)to skip New Haven, main warm-up event before US Open . Noone can play at her 100% four weeks in a row.Top players are good athletes, but they are not robots.

OsloErik
Mar 9th, 2008, 10:11 PM
301 gold medals every four years versus 16 possible slams every four years? The Olympics aren't the pinnacle of every sport, and tennis is certainly not one of the sports that is defined around the Olympics (figure skating, gymnastics, etc.)

Cp6uja
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:30 PM
The reason why the likes of Massu, Rosset and Mecir won isn't because the OG in ATP is less important, it's because there's far more depth in men's tennis than in women's, virtually every Slam in WTA is won by a 'superstar', Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova, etc. and a few years ago it was Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, etc. In men's tennis, Johansson wins a Slam, Costa and Gaudio win Slams, people like Baghdatis and Tsonga come close, and that's what's happened at the Olympics.No, its not like that and why is Tsonga or Bagdatis worse than Bartoli and Johanson worse than Majoli for example? Since 1988 (start of new olympic era) we have about 30 different GS champions in ATP and about 20 in WTA (major reason for that is actualy Steffi Graf - in last 10 years number of different ATP champions is same or similar with WTA). It's simple not truth that when we look ATP Olympic finals we will see same picture from ATP slams. If list of OG WTA and ATP winners not enough for you to belive me that WTA OG tournaments is always so important and competetive and very remind to slams and ATP tournaments is always weak and mostly even worse than some casual tournament from masters series i will present you list of WTA and ATP finals:

OLYMPIC GAMES ATP FINALS:
Miroslav Mecir (TCH) def. Tim Mayotte (USA)
Marc Rosset (SUI) def. Jordi Arrese (ESP)
Andre Agassi (USA) def. Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) def. Tommy Haas (GER)
Nicolas Massu (CHI) def. Mardy Fish (USA)


OLYMPIC GAMES WTA FINALS:
Steffi Graf (GER) def. Gabriela Sabatini (ARG)
Jennifer Capriati (USA) def. Steffi Graf (GER)
Lindsay Davenport (USA) def. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (ESP)
Venus Williams (USA) def. Elena Dementieva (RUS)
Justine Henin (BEL) def. Amelie Mauresmo (FRA)

9 of 10 WTA finalists is multiple slam winners (only Dementieva is exception and only Mauresmo and Sabatini reach less than 3 slams titles).
8 of 10 WTA finalists is former #1 ranked players (only exceptions is Dementieva and Sabatini).

7 of 10 ATP finalists never won slam (only Agassi reach more than 2 titles).
8 of 10 ATP finalists never reach ATP #1 spot.

Where is multiple slam winners and former #1 like Sampras, Federer, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, Kuerten which all reach more than 2 slam titles since 1988 in all this ATP OG finals between 1988-2004??? Only Agassi is here and if 1996 host is not USA/Atlanta - i doubt that he will also be there. On other hand if we count all womens which reach more than 2 GS titles since 1988 only Hingis, Seles and Serena is not here - and all this three have good explanation for that. Seles is baned from Barcelona b/c UN sanctions against Serbia, 15 yo Hingis is too young in 1996 and already injuried in 2000 (2004 also) and not compete. Serena played only in doubles and reach gold (2000 she dont have enough good ranking to be part of US team and in 2004 she is injuried.

In this case it's a common sense. Just common sense.
In tennis GS >>> Olympics. Period.
In tennis:
ATP GS winner >>> ATP Olympics gold
WTA GS winner >= WTA Olympics gold
Doubles GS winner << Doubles Olympics gold
Period.

I mean name me one person who will be at the Olympics in Beijing in men's sport that's bigger than Federer?I not say that Federer is not enough big sports star - i only notice that in mans sports you have superstars all the way and give example of US Olympic basketball team at Beijing (current version: Bryant, James, Anthony, Howard, Stoudamire, Kidd... etc...) that have more global "superstars" than whole ATP. But on other hand if we look womens sports - WTA have more global "superstars" (Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Ivanovic...) than all athlets from all other sports which will compete in Beijing (i mean "global superstars" - not local stars). That is reason why for Nike, Adidas, Reebok... womans tennis Olympic tournament is so important and special, and dont realy care about ATP part.

The Daviator
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:45 PM
No, its not like that and why is Tsonga or Bagdatis worse than Bartoli and Johanson worse than Majoli for example? Since 1988 (start of new olympic era) we have about 30 different GS champions in ATP and about 20 in WTA (major reason for that is actualy Steffi Graf - in last 10 years number of different ATP champions is same or similar with WTA). It's simple not truth that when we look ATP Olympic finals we will see same picture from ATP slams. If list of OG WTA and ATP winners not enough for you to belive me that WTA OG tournaments is always so important and competetive and very remind to slams and ATP tournaments is always weak and mostly even worse than some casual tournament from masters series i will present you list of WTA and ATP finals:

OLYMPIC GAMES ATP FINALS:
Miloslav Mecir (TCH) def. Tim Mayotte (USA)
Marc Rosset (SUI) def. Jordi Arrese (ESP)
Andre Agassi (USA) def. Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) def. Tommy Haas (GER)
Nicolas Massu (CHI) def. Mardy Fish (USA)


OLYMPIC GAMES WTA FINALS:
Steffi Graf (GER) def. Gabriela Sabatini (ARG)
Jennifer Capriati (USA) def. Steffi Graf (GER)
Lindsay Davenport (USA) def. Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (ESP)
Venus Williams (USA) def. Elena Dementieva (RUS)
Justine Henin (BEL) def. Amelie Mauresmo (FRA)

9 of 10 WTA finalists is multiple slam winners (only Dementieva is exception and only Mauresmo and Sabatini reach less than 3 slams titles).
8 of 10 WTA finalists is former #1 ranked players (only exceptions is Dementieva and Sabatini).

7 of 10 ATP finalists never won slam (only Agassi reach more than 2 titles).
8 of 10 ATP finalists never reach ATP #1 spot.

Where is multiple slam winners and former #1 like Samprass, Federer, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, Kuerten which all reach more than 2 slam titles since 1988 in all this ATP OG finals between 1988-2004??? Only Agassi is here and if 1996 host is not USA/Atlanta - i doubt that he will also be there. On other hand if we count all womens which reach more than 2 GS titles since 1988 only Hingis, Seles and Serena is not here - and all this three have good explanation for that. Seles is baned from Barcelona b/c UN sanctions against Serbia, 15 yo Hingis is too young in 1996 and already injuried in 2000 (2004 also) and not compete. Serena played only in doubles and reach gold (2000 she dont have enough good ranking to be part of US team and in 2004 she is injuried.

Only since 2004 have the finals in the ATP become repetitive, that was the last year the Olympics were played, before then you had Schuettler, Verkerk, Phillippoussis, Clement, Nalbandian, Corretja, etc. reaching GS finals, what's the difference between those finalists and the ones you listed? Meanwhile in the same time on WTA, you had - Williams x 2, Belgians x 2, Capriati, Hingis, all established top players. The fact is it's much more likely that you'll get a surprise winner in ATP, and it's got nothing to do with the Olympics, also, both Federer and Roddick were present in Athens '04, where was Hingis in 2000? What about Clijsters in 2004? I know she had sponsorship issues, but she also dissed the games as was posted earlier, it's more or less the same in both IMO, except the men's event has had more unheralded winners, but I haven't heard many top ATP player say they don't want OG badly.

I not say that Federer is not enough big sports star - i only notice that in mans sports you have superstars all the way and give example of US Olympic basketball team at Beijing (current version: Bryant, James, Anthony, Howard, Stoudamire, Kidd... etc...) that have more global "superstars" than whole ATP. But on other hand if we look womens sports - WTA have more global "superstars" (Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Henin, Davenport, Mauresmo, Ivanovic...) than all athlets from all other sports which will compete in Beijing (i mean "global superstars" - not local stars). That is reason why for Nike, Adidas, Reebok... womans tennis Olympic tournament is so important and special, and dont realy care about ATP part.

Tennis gets more coverage than most Olympic sports, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic will all get a lot of press coverage and exposure from their sponsors, a lot of the top US basketball players don't compete in the Olympics because they don't get paid! But I will say you're right in that the biggest female stars are the tennis players by far.

frontier
Mar 9th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Grand Slams are for tennis records but Olympics is about world sport records.The occasion happens once every four years and the whole world will be watching.Olmpics are about pride for your country and slams are for individual glory.:bounce:

hingisGOAT
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:02 AM
The top playres don't always compete in the Olympics... like in 2000, the world #1 was tearing up the WTA Tour b/c the Olympics was a minnie mouse event... it makes the title very shallow. :shrug:

I think it depends on the player and their country. For the underpriveleged third world players, the Olympics might be a huge deal... but no bigger than a Slam. For the rest of the players, they're all aware it's a glorified exhibition. It's nice to say you have an Olympic Gold but is in no way prestigious or representative of exceptional skill

hdfb
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:25 AM
Slam hands down!! Only the nutheads in China would think otherwise.

Expat
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:42 AM
it depends on the country you come from
if you come from a communist or ex communist country like china russia serbia the olympics carry a lot of value
hello countries like east germany even systematically doped their participants to win in the olympics

the other category of countries that value a olympics medal are those that suck at sports generally like india or belgium

but note that in both these cases the importance comes from achieving something for your country
but tennis wise it means nothing as establishing your worth in the game
it is measured in terms of slams
unlike some other sports like gymnastics or figure skating where an olympic gold is a measure of a player greatness

The Daviator
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:46 AM
The top playres don't always compete in the Olympics... like in 2000, the world #1 was tearing up the WTA Tour b/c the Olympics was a minnie mouse event... it makes the title very shallow. :shrug:

I think it depends on the player and their country. For the underpriveleged third world players, the Olympics might be a huge deal... but no bigger than a Slam. For the rest of the players, they're all aware it's a glorified exhibition. It's nice to say you have an Olympic Gold but is in no way prestigious or representative of exceptional skill

Who says that? Any examples? Hingis played in Atlanta, had she won you'd value it I'm sure.

Usual crap from you.

LindsayRulz
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:51 AM
The top playres don't always compete in the Olympics... like in 2000, the world #1 was tearing up the WTA Tour b/c the Olympics was a minnie mouse event... it makes the title very shallow. :shrug:

I think it depends on the player and their country. For the underpriveleged third world players, the Olympics might be a huge deal... but no bigger than a Slam. For the rest of the players, they're all aware it's a glorified exhibition. It's nice to say you have an Olympic Gold but is in no way prestigious or representative of exceptional skill

:spit:

miffedmax
Mar 10th, 2008, 01:48 AM
Clearly, an Olympic silver ranks as the greatest achievement in tennis.

Cp6uja
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:05 AM
Only since 2004 have the finals in the ATP become repetitive, that was the last year the Olympics were played, before then you had Schuettler, Verkerk, Phillippoussis, Clement, Nalbandian, Corretja, etc. reaching GS finals, what's the difference between those finalists and the ones you listed? Meanwhile in the same time on WTA, you had - Williams x 2, Belgians x 2, Capriati, Hingis, all established top players. The fact is it's much more likely that you'll get a surprise winner in ATP, and it's got nothing to do with the Olympics, also, both Federer and Roddick were present in Athens '04, where was Hingis in 2000? What about Clijsters in 2004? I know she had sponsorship issues, but she also dissed the games as was posted earlier, it's more or less the same in both IMO, except the men's event has had more unheralded winners, but I haven't heard many top ATP player say they don't want OG badly.In 20 years (80 GS finals and 160 GS finalists) of course that you will find about 10 surprises... but at ATP Olympic tournament is surprise if no surprise! BTW mostly of ATP GS surprise finalists is from RG clay and all OG tournaments is hardcourt (except Barcelona 1992). So for you

THIS :help::help::help::OLYMPIC GAMES ATP FINALS:
1988 Seoul: Miloslav Mecir (TCH) def. Tim Mayotte (USA)
1992 Barcelona: Marc Rosset (SUI) def. Jordi Arrese (ESP)
1996 Atlanta: Andre Agassi (USA) def. Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
2000 Sydnay: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) def. Tommy Haas (GER)
2004 Athens: Nicolas Massu (CHI) def. Mardy Fish (USA)


Is CORRECT PICTURE

of THIS :worship::worship::worship::
Australian Open 88/04 finals: US Open 88/04 finals:
AO/88: Wilander d. Cash USO/88: Wilander d. Lendl
AO/89: Lendl d. Mecir USO/89: Becker d. Lendl
AO/90: Lendl d. Edberg USO/90: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/91: Becker d. Lendl USO/91: Edberg d. Courier
AO/92: Courier d. Edberg USO/92: Edberg d. Sampras
AO/93: Courier d. Edberg USO/93: Sampras d. Pioline
AO/94: Sampras d. Martin USO/94: Agassi d. Stich
AO/95: Agassi d. Sampras USO/95: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/96: Becker d. Chang USO/96: Sampras d. Chang
AO/97: Sampras d. Moya USO/97: Rafter d. Rusedski
AO/98: Korda d. Ríos USO/98: Rafter d. Philippoussis
AO/99: Kafelnikov d. Enqvist USO/99: Agassi d. Martin
AO/00: Agassi d. Kafelnikov USO/00: Safin d. Sampras
AO/01: Agassi d. Clement USO/01: Hewitt d. Sampras
AO/02: Johansson d. Safin USO/02: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/03: Agassi d. Schuttler USO/03: Roddick d. Ferrero
AO/04: Federer d. Safin USO/04: Federer d. Hewitt


Roland Garros finals (about 1992):
RG/91: Courier d. Agassi
RG/92: Courier d. Korda
RG/93: Bruguera d. Courier

You must me joke!

But if you see womans OG finals - its realy correct picture about what is happen in womans tennis in last 20 years.

it depends on the country you come from
if you come from a communist or ex communist country like china russia serbia the olympics carry a lot of value
hello countries like east germany even systematically doped their participants to win in the olympicsI think it depends on the player and their country. For the underpriveleged third world players, the Olympics might be a huge deal... but no bigger than a Slam. For the rest of the players, they're all aware it's a glorified exhibition. It's nice to say you have an Olympic Gold but is in no way prestigious or representative of exceptional skillBoth of you still living in past... things is radical change in modern tennis... For example in mans tennis trio from Swiss, Spain and Serbia so dominate right now in mans competition that in "traditional" big tennis nations and countries (USA, AUS, FRA, UK) will be so extremly happy and prouud if theys player reach gold (Roddick, Hewitt, Gasqet or Murray for example) despite fact that ATP OG is traditionaly sh*ty tournament.

Clearly, an Olympic silver ranks as the greatest achievement in tennis.Elena needs only RU of AO and Wimbledon for 1st SILVER SLAM ever in tennis history :eek: (same thing like GOLDEN SLAM - only you must to lose all 5 big finals).

The Daviator
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:29 AM
In 20 years (80 GS finals and 160 GS finalists) of course that you will find about 10 surprises... but at ATP Olympic tournament is surprise if no surprise! BTW mostly of ATP GS surprise finalists is from RG clay and all OG tournaments is hardcourt (except Barcelona 1992). So for you

THIS :help::help::help::OLYMPIC GAMES ATP FINALS:
1988 Seoul: Miloslav Mecir (TCH) def. Tim Mayotte (USA)
1992 Barcelona: Marc Rosset (SUI) def. Jordi Arrese (ESP)
1996 Atlanta: Andre Agassi (USA) def. Sergi Bruguera (ESP)
2000 Sydnay: Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) def. Tommy Haas (GER)
2004 Athens: Nicolas Massu (CHI) def. Mardy Fish (USA)


Is CORRECT PICTURE

of THIS :worship::worship::worship::
Australian Open 88/04 finals: US Open 88/04 finals:
AO/88: Wilander d. Cash USO/88: Wilander d. Lendl
AO/89: Lendl d. Mecir USO/89: Becker d. Lendl
AO/90: Lendl d. Edberg USO/90: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/91: Becker d. Lendl USO/91: Edberg d. Courier
AO/92: Courier d. Edberg USO/92: Edberg d. Sampras
AO/93: Courier d. Edberg USO/93: Sampras d. Pioline
AO/94: Sampras d. Martin USO/94: Agassi d. Stich
AO/95: Agassi d. Sampras USO/95: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/96: Becker d. Chang USO/96: Sampras d. Chang
AO/97: Sampras d. Moya USO/97: Rafter d. Rusedski
AO/98: Korda d. Ríos USO/98: Rafter d. Philippoussis
AO/99: Kafelnikov d. Enqvist USO/99: Agassi d. Martin
AO/00: Agassi d. Kafelnikov USO/00: Safin d. Sampras
AO/01: Agassi d. Clement USO/01: Hewitt d. Sampras
AO/02: Johansson d. Safin USO/02: Sampras d. Agassi
AO/03: Agassi d. Schuttler USO/03: Roddick d. Ferrero
AO/04: Federer d. Safin USO/04: Federer d. Hewitt


Roland Garros finals (about 1992):
RG/91: Courier d. Agassi
RG/92: Courier d. Korda
RG/93: Bruguera d. Courier

You must me joke!

:o

Your argument might have some base if only mediocre players like Massu showed up, but Federer, Roddick, Ferrero, Henman, Safin, etc. all the top players at the time minus Hewitt and Agassi who already won gold, were there.

There is ONE Olympic event every 4 years, in that time there are 16 Grand Slams, try and hold RG once every 4 years and see who wins it, I'm sure it'll be a great player every time, what I'm saying is that the men's OG event is somewhat representative of ATP tennis, it's a field with a lot of depth and nothing is certain, in WTA at any given time there's a monopoly of 4 or 5 players that win EVERY big title, there's no depth, which is why you have so many great players winning OG.

You can't say that one is worse than the other because of who won it :help: If that's the case the WTA RG is more important than ATP RG 'cos there have been quite a few poor finalists/winners there :help:

Shvedbarilescu
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:41 AM
:o

Your argument might have some base if only mediocre players like Massu showed up, but Federer, Roddick, Ferrero, Henman, Safin, etc. all the top players at the time minus Hewitt and Agassi who already won gold, were there.

There is ONE Olympic event every 4 years, in that time there are 16 Grand Slams, try and hold RG once every 4 years and see who wins it, I'm sure it'll be a great player every time, what I'm saying is that the men's OG event is somewhat representative of ATP tennis, it's a field with a lot of depth and nothing is certain, in WTA at any given time there's a monopoly of 4 or 5 players that win EVERY big title, there's no depth, which is why you have so many great players winning OG.

You can't say that one is worse than the other because of who won it :help: If that's the case the WTA RG is more important than ATP RG 'cos there have been quite a few poor finalists/winners there :help:

Cp6uja, as much as respect a lot of what you have to say, I think The Daviator makes a good argument here. No question as your posts say that the womens who have won the last 5 Golds are biggest names than the men but thats just the way it is. Men's tennis does produce more upsets. Had Tsonga beaten Djokovic in the Final of the Australian Open one would say that the Men's event was less important than the women's event because a big star won the women's event and a virtually unknown, outside of tennis circles won the mens title.

Personally all these titles are as important as we chose to make them I'd say. We all have our own interpretations. And they are all valid but none of them are definitive.

go hingis
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:51 AM
Grandslams, not many top players play the olympics, only a few players from each coutry can play and if you look back at some of the medal winners in singles and doubles they would be lucky to make a qtr final of a slam.

hkyen
Mar 10th, 2008, 02:56 AM
Both are important

Tennisstar86
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:01 AM
Grandslams, not many top players play the olympics, only a few players from each coutry can play and if you look back at some of the medal winners in singles and doubles they would be lucky to make a qtr final of a slam.

Bitter that Hingis doesnt have one? lol

Davenport, Henin, Graf, Capriati are all multiple grand slam winners.... not only that, They beat GS winners/ finalist on the way to the gold/ in the final...

Cp6uja
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:49 AM
Cp6uja, as much as respect a lot of what you have to say, I think The Daviator makes a good argument here.My point is not that field (entry list) is stronger at womens OG competitions. When games start mostly of best ATP and WTA players is always there. But b/c OG is so important for WTA stars (and theys image, sponsors...etc) and have "who care" status for biggest ATP stars - all girls give always they best and in final we always have some "very best" scenario b/c that. On other hand ATP OG tournament is UPSET-Party b/c biggest stars dont want this title even close so badly like some GS title. Players like for example Federer, Nadal or Djokovic played right now at every tournament of masters series to win - but they dont give theys 100% and also calculate... so upset against cleary worse player is not so imposible, so chances for other players to win is much bigger... but at slams they always give they best and chances that all of current TOP3 will be upsetet is not so big.

Or if you like only examples from WTA i try to explain you why fact that WTA OG have high level of importance for players and ATP dont have in 80% cases so far produce strange finals in ATP OG competitions but never so far in OG WTA part. Good exampe is last two OG WTA champions Justine and Venus and how they play at tournaments which is very important for them and how at less important tournaments in term of theys priority.

Justine Henin (2004 OG champion) in two years between june of 2005 and June of 2007 is best world player and in that time she played 8 slams and reach 6 GS finals including 3 GS titles. In same that time she not win any tier-I title and reach only 3 tier-I finals.

Or Venus Williams (2000 OG champion) case. Before 2000 Venus Williams reach only one slam final (and lose). In same time she reach 6 tier-I finals and won 4 of them. After 2000 Venus reach only 3 tier-I finals (won 2) but on other hand she reach in same that period 11 slam finals (won 6).

Its obviously question of priority and its obvious that for WTA great players like Justine or Venus OG have high priority in season when they wins, but for best mans players in last two decades like Sampras, Federer, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Courier, Kuerten... OG is obviously is realy not so important so nobody of this "Hall of Fame" multiple slam winners and #1 players never reach even OG final. Only exception is Andre Agassi in Atlanta 1996... but like i say reason for that exception is b/c this OG is in USA so Agassi played in that case seriously so players of Massu or Rosset class realy dont have any chances. On other hand since 1988 almost all greatest WTA players (multiple slam winners and former #1) atleast once played at OG with high priority and give her best to reach that title. That is the difference (which produce good womens and strange mans finals). Compare all GS hardcourts finalists between 1988 and 2004 and you will find less strange tennis names of this 64 than of 10 which played OG finals.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:55 AM
And Kafelnikov is not Hall of Fame material nor multiple GS winner. I didn´t have idea

kittyking
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:56 AM
Your 16 times more likely to win a grand slam than win an Olympic Gold, so in that case I'd say its far more valuable to win Olympic Gold :)

Expat
Mar 10th, 2008, 03:58 AM
Your 16 times more likely to win a grand slam than win an Olympic Gold, so in that case I'd say its far more valuable to win Olympic Gold :)

you are 4 times more likely to win gs over the yec
does that make the yec >>>> the slams

Cp6uja
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:17 AM
And Kafelnikov is not Hall of Fame material nor multiple GS winner. I didn´t have ideaI give same criteria at previous page for ATP and WTA - more than 2 slams and #1 rank. That is reason why i not count Mauresmo and Sabatini so "only" 7 of 10 WTA OG finalists is "Hall of Fame" and only Agassi of 10 mans is from that category. 6 of this 10 mans actualy never played any slam final (atleast 3 of them never played at GS SF actualy) so even if Kafelnikov greatest player ever he and Agassi is not enough to change fact that in mans competition OG is always sh*ty tournament and OG gold dont have some big value, but in WTA it's always like real 5th slam every leap year.

svetaisthebest
Mar 10th, 2008, 04:18 AM
a grand slam

Hardiansf
Mar 10th, 2008, 05:26 AM
For some countries, An Olympic Medal, let alone GOLD, are mean everything... yes EVERYTHING, the athletes whole life will be change because of that. Indonesia, and I believe most of the Asia, and Africa maybe, is just like that.
But if I were a tennis player, there will be: Slam title > Gold Olympic > YEC title > Slam Final > Silver Olympic > Bronze Olympic > Tier I title

Henpova
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:04 AM
I just want to put my two cent in.

I think for a fan of tennis it is better to win a GS. For and non-fan it is better to win a OG. Look at it this way. If I was Henin and if I was going to talk to huge crowd of tennis fan I would like to be called Justine Henin 7 time GS champ. If I was talking to people at TV show, I would like to be called Justine Henin Olympic Gold Medalist because this is some thing ever person in the world knows. I think the GS are higher, but there is a kind of honer with the Olympics. When you win a Medal for your country, you are not doing it for your self, you are doing it for your people.

So I think they are both great, and if any one wins a OG then they should be known as a great tennis player because it is hard to win a OG, just like it is hard to win a Slam. Maybe not as hard but it is far more rare.

kittyking
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:11 AM
you are 4 times more likely to win gs over the yec
does that make the yec >>>> the slams

Completely different level of prestige associated with it

Sort of like how most players on tour would prefer to win Wimbledon instead of Rolland Garros, despite both having similar prizemoney.

mankind
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:15 AM
Many people argue tennis shouldn't even be an Olympic sport. It is an individualistic, self-involved sport by nature so of course it matters more than the Olympics objectively. We must ask the question: what exactly makes an Olympic gold medal valuable? Its value lies in patriotic and nationalistic ideals because you are winning a medal for your COUNTRY. Some people don't give a shit about their country, some change nationalities with the click of a finger. Doesn't sound like much value lies in an Olympic medal in tennis to me. :shrug: Arguments like "but the Olympics only comes around 4 years so it's more special" just do not hold up. The Olympics is only held every four years because it's such a damn nuisance. Being the first player to win an Olympic gold medal does not mean more than being the seventy-ninth player to win Wimbledon. In fact, it means much less.

lightningquick
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:17 AM
I just want to put my two cent in.

I think for a fan of tennis it is better to win a GS. For and non-fan it is better to win a OG. Look at it this way. If I was Henin and if I was going to talk to huge crowd of tennis fan I would like to be called Justine Henin 7 time GS champ. If I was talking to people at TV show, I would like to be called Justine Henin Olympic Gold Medalist because this is some thing ever person in the world knows. I think the GS are higher, but there is a kind of honer with the Olympics. When you win a Medal for your country, you are not doing it for your self, you are doing it for your people.

So I think they are both great, and if any one wins a OG then they should be known as a great tennis player because it is hard to win a OG, just like it is hard to win a Slam. Maybe not as hard but it is far more rare.


Yes, you would have good points. Let's say you have no idea about tennis, nothing at all, but then you meet this person who is an olympic gold medalist, you will think, oh, this person must be very good in tennis.

Also lalit, you can't compare YEC even to the OG, since OG is done every 4 years. I can't say an OG gold medal is better than winning a slam, but you are a very special player to have won in it considering that a few players have won, it compared to players who have won slams. This is just my opinion.

lightningquick
Mar 10th, 2008, 08:35 AM
Many people argue tennis shouldn't even be an Olympic sport. It is an individualistic, self-involved sport by nature so of course it matters more than the Olympics objectively. We must ask the question: what exactly makes an Olympic gold medal valuable? Its value lies in patriotic and nationalistic ideals because you are winning a medal for your COUNTRY. Some people don't give a shit about their country, some change nationalities with the click of a finger. Doesn't sound like much value lies in an Olympic medal in tennis to me. :shrug: Arguments like "but the Olympics only comes around 4 years so it's more special" just do not hold up. The Olympics is only held every four years because it's such a damn nuisance. Being the first player to win an Olympic gold medal does not mean more than being the seventy-ninth player to win Wimbledon. In fact, it means much less.

Yes, you make some valid points too, but like others have said, it depends also on your country. Here in my country, an athlete once won a silver medal in the olympics, and he was made into suchhhh a big celebrity, imagine if it was a gold medal. I somehow doubt the same could be said if a player won a slam, but I can't say for sure because a Filipino never won a slam, but if he/she won a gold medal in the olympics, i am 100% sure he/she will become big and famous nationwide.

goldlion
Mar 10th, 2008, 10:11 AM
It is dependent on the sort of sport.

Swimmers prefer an Olympic gold.

But in tennis, Olympic isn't equivalent to Grand Slams.

Me being selfish:

1) The prize money is much more handsome in GS.

2) There's no quotas in GS, unlike only 2 representatives from each countries in Olympic.

3) The whole Olympic event is too dynamic and tennis is always overlooked.

In my perspective, only Chinese stress on Olympic.

They keep telling ppl Sun and Li were the Olympic Doubles Gold medalist ....

and what happens nowadays on them? One's quit and the other one's not stunning either.

Cp6uja
Mar 10th, 2008, 12:00 PM
Many people argue tennis shouldn't even be an Olympic sport. It is an individualistic, self-involved sport by nature so of course it matters more than the Olympics objectively. We must ask the question: what exactly makes an Olympic gold medal valuable?This olympic old story is in minority especialy since crash of comunism and nobody more take this demagogic arguments in Olympic movement seriously now. This is actualy means:
Profe$$ionali$m = BAD THING = no place at Olympics Games
Amateurism = GOOD = all athletes at OG must be "amateurs"

Thanks God this fake and wrong theory is now only part of history of Olympic movement and since 1988 and 1992 we finally at Olympics have posibility to watch some of worlds best athlets from NBA, NHL, ATP or WTA. That makes Olympic Basketball and Ice Hockey (winter Olympics) tournaments at OG much better and give comeback of tennis at OG after more of 50 years ban b/c "professionalism" and like i already say: WTA OG tournament is already since new start (since 1988) one of most interesting, prestige and exciting events in womans competitions at summer Olympics. At other hand mans tennis competition is since start (1988 also) always fake and sh*ty tournament and very remind at soccer OG tournaments (BTW in WOMANS SOCCER OG is maybe more important than World Championship, unlike in mans competition of course).

In modern sports (since 1970s especialy) all sports and best athletes is actualy "professional" and only difference is that in some more atractive sports simple pay better. End of story. Biggest difference between tennis and for example table tennis or badminton is only in fact that tennis is in global much more popular and atractive sport and if that valueble reason that tennis should not be part of OG something is realy wrong with this world.

All my posts in this thread dont have point to prove that OG have equal value like slams in tennis. I only want to notice that too many posters here b/c fact that in mans competition OG Gold realy never have some big value for best players - they ignore fact that for biggest WTA stars OG is always very close by importance and value to slams and in doubles competition OG is even more important than any GS.

ATP GS > WTA GS > WTA OG > ATP YEC > ATP OG > WTA YEC > doubles OG > doubles GS
^^^ this is how in majority things works for tennis fans, sports fans, sponsors, media, publicity... etc in tennis in last 20 years

So one-dimensional comments like GS >>>>> OG is useless (and works only for ATP). I give here rational explanations why for media or companies like Nike for example is highest priority to see worlds biggest female sports stars at event like Olympic Games and like we know in global biggest womans sports star is traditionaly tennis players. In mans sports you have superstars all the way and that is reason why at OG nobody will cry b/c no best soccer players or b/c early upset of some ATP star which played OG like EXO.

Tennisstar86
Mar 10th, 2008, 06:41 PM
It is dependent on the sort of sport.

Swimmers prefer an Olympic gold.

But in tennis, Olympic isn't equivalent to Grand Slams.

Me being selfish:

1) The prize money is much more handsome in GS.

2) There's no quotas in GS, unlike only 2 representatives from each countries in Olympic.

3) The whole Olympic event is too dynamic and tennis is always overlooked.

In my perspective, only Chinese stress on Olympic.

They keep telling ppl Sun and Li were the Olympic Doubles Gold medalist ....

and what happens nowadays on them? One's quit and the other one's not stunning either.

Its not 2, its 3 isnt it... THe year Venus won, Davenport lost early, Seles lost in the Semi's to dementieva and Venus won... then Seles got the bronze....

"Tennis is overlooked" Not really... its just not swimming or Gymnastics, which are the premier sports of the olympics....

Matt01
Mar 10th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Its not 2, its 3 isnt it... THe year Venus won, Davenport lost early, Seles lost in the Semi's to dementieva and Venus won... then Seles got the bronze....


Seles has never lost to Dementieva.

Tennisstar86
Mar 11th, 2008, 02:41 AM
Seles has never lost to Dementieva.

my bad, she lost to venus... for some reason i thought seles and venus were on opposite sides of the draw...

Jeff
Mar 11th, 2008, 08:55 AM
It's a matter of opinion, of course. I think if you are someone who has very few opportunities to win a slam, then a slam is more important. I think if you are someone who has more than a few slams and will likely have many opportunities, then Olympic Gold is more valuable. Slams are played every single year and you have four opportunities, while the Olympics is only once every four years - if u lose, well then you have no chance unless you have a good career for another four years.

Andy T
Mar 11th, 2008, 10:58 AM
From the fan's point of view and the media point of view, a slam. When we think of JCap, Dav & Venus, we think of the slams they won before any gold medals. Steffi's a special case because of the whole "golden slam" thing but even then, her slam successes are more prominent.

Maybe for an individual player, an Olympic Gold can have more significance but for the sport of tennis as a whole, Kim's right in my opinion. Tennis should be a mixed team sport in the Olympics, one rubber each of MS, WS, MD, WD & XD - something different from anything else that exists in the sport with the emphasis on co-ed team spirit. Billie Jean King, where are you?

merda2004
Mar 11th, 2008, 11:12 AM
they are both so different.u cant compare the two.different points/money/fame.
for me it must be the olympics.its the ultimate level/fame for an athlete.and its not only me saying it...its them!!!