PDA

View Full Version : Importance of the olympics?


dany.p
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:27 PM
okay i know this seems a bit late, and it's been discussed before, but i think now's the perfect time to bring this up. The hysteria around the olympics has died down, so people might be somewhat more objective in answering this question. So where should we rate the olympics in comparison to the grandslams, the year ending champs and IW and Miami?????? Does having a player like Dementieva, Who's never won a grandlsam before (talented as she is), diminish its prestige somewhat? The olympics have had a very impressive list of winners, and i think outside of dementieva, they're all grandslam winners (at least from 1988 onwards they all are). So what do we all think?

Miss Atomic Bomb
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:30 PM
Serena> Slams > YEC > MIAMI [Its considered the 5th slam] > Olympics...


Ofcourse dementieva fans will defer, if she wins IW or something in futureit will be regarded bigger than GS

Danči Dementia
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:33 PM
Olympics > every other tournament

and having Dementieva winning the gold increases its prestige :o

Dave.
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:35 PM
Anyone who says Miami is bigger than the Olympics is delusional or biased (or both).

The Olympics along with the YEC are the two most important tournaments after the Grand Slams.

Olórin
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:38 PM
I think the Olympics is on a par, perhaps slightly more valuable than a YECs title.

A lot of people say it's got more value because it only comes round once every four years; but despite that fact, you get many top players not playing. I know some players like Serena said the Olympics were their main goal this summer, but I still can't help but wonder if Serena would have jumped around the court in quite such an excited manner if she had won the Olympics as she did when she won the Open.

It's clearly a very important tournament, but nowhere near as prestigous as a slam. Great players always win it, but great players always win the YECs, great players always win Miami, great players always win Indian Wells.

LudwigDvorak
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:41 PM
So where should we rate the olympics in comparison to the grandslams, the year ending champs and IW and Miami??????

For me:
AO/FO/WIM/USO > OG > Miami > YEC

The Year-Ending Championships just aren't that special, with tired top stars and lacklustre attendance in crap locations. Miami is a wonderful event, but you can play it every year...Olympics is once per four years, so for that special reason I'd put it over Miami. There's just little compared to the Olympics, really.


Does having a player like Dementieva, Who's never won a grandlsam before (talented as she is), diminish its prestige somewhat?

I've expounded on this before, but let's say Dementieva makes the top two and wins one more Tier I title...and still doesn't win a slam. It'd be one of the biggest mysteries in the WTA's history, because those same exact stats can be attributed to just about all the other slam champions since the late '80s/early '90s as exactly what Dementieva has, just bar the slam.

To answer the question a bit more clearly: yes, if you don't like her; no, if you do like her.


The olympics have had a very imppressive list of winners, and i think outside of dementieva, they're all grandslam winners.

Yes.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:43 PM
When Nadal did play the Final in Miami this year , I did not give a shit . Rafa has won 12 TMS and will win more shields in the future
When RN did play the Olympics Final I was nervous cos it was an unique opportunity. Probably new chances won´t appear in the future

For me Miami = Rome = Charleston = Moscow . Tier Ones

Olórin
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:51 PM
When Nadal did play the Final in Miami this year , I did not give a shit . Rafa has won 12 TMS and will win more shields in the future
When RN did play the Olympics Final I was nervous cos it was an unique opportunity. Probably new chances won´t appear in the future

For me Miami = Rome = Charleston = Moscow . Tier Ones

Well the fact is that Miami is called by many the 5th Grand Slam and along with Indian Wells it is classified as a Super Tier One.

It has a larger draw than any tournament bar the slams, and in general is formatted more like a slam than any other tournament.

In women's tennis, every winner of Miami has also been a Grand Slam Champion. Which is more than you can say for any other tier one and even the Olympics. Just to clarify, I don't rate Miami as a more important tournament than the Olympics.

MarieC
Sep 9th, 2008, 04:57 PM
An Olympic Gold ranks as #5 behind the slams because of the prestige of the Olympics. The YEC's, Miami, and IW might be harder to win, but the Olympics still ranks above them.

goldenlox
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:18 PM
An Olympic Gold medal for tennis singles is a nice thing to have. Whether you are Nadal or Dementieva, I'm sure it's very special to both of them.

QUEENLINDSAY
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Its not important for people who does'nt have a chance of winning a Gold but its as important to GS for those who won it.

Slutati
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Slams>Olympics>everything else

miffedmax
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:38 PM
Fact One: Lena says the Olympics.

Fact Two: Lena is completely perfect and never, ever wrong.

Given these indisputable facts, it is clear that The OG are the most important.

(Oh look! Mommy Vera is making more Kool-Aid! Yaaaayyyy!!!!)

Tamus
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Grand Slams > Olympics > YEC

If you were to poll the players, this would be the most common response. (Miami has no business even being in the discussion)

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:56 PM
Personally I rate Miami and Indian Wells at the same level and both only sightly above the other Tier 1s. That said I probably rate Tier 1s higher than some of the people in this forum who seem to act as it nothing but Grand Slams matter.

As for the Olympics. I recognise it is a strange event and it will have a very different level of importance to each and every fan and player alike ranging from being greater in importance to the Grand Slams to being of absolutely no importance at all and merely an unnecessary interuption to the normal WTA schedule. For me, I regard the Olympics very highly, as highly as a Grand Slam although wouldn't say more than a Slam.

As for whether Dementieva winning the Olympics in any way diminishes its prestige I would say emphatically 100 times no it does not. But frankly if someone outside of the top 30 won the Olympic Gold I would say the same thing, just as if someone outside the top 30 won a Grand Slam that would not diminish the Grand Slam's prestige one bit, it would only very substantially increase the winning player's reputation.

Lastly the Year End Championships is fun but I don't take it very seriously. It almost feels like an exhibition event with only eight players, albeit eight very good players. I would regard it as no higher in importance than a normal Tier 1 event.

miffedmax
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:07 PM
FWIW, I would argue that Lena D's road to the Olympic Gold was harder than her road to the semis at either Wimbledon or the US Open.

My girl TOOK OUT RENA for God's sake, and if you haven't noticed the young Ms. Williams has been playing rather decently this summer.

I know I'm a bit irrational when it comes to things Lena, but I don't see how having a perennial Top 10 player who's played in two slam finals (okay, she played in one slam final, but she made two slam finals) and consistently reaches the quarters and semis of majors somehow degrades any title she wins.

No, she is not the best player. Yes she has not won a slam. But she is still a very, very, very good player and one of the game's elite.

And she has that great giggle.

Volcana
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:08 PM
How important the Olympics is, is something personal to an individual. The WTA wrote down their opinion when they assigned it points.

Henin got 750 for winning the YEC last year.
Serena got 500 for winning Miami.
Dementieva got 353 points for winning the Olympics. (More than a Tier II, less than a Tier I)But the Olympics is almost a .... it's a different thing. People value just participating in the Olympics. Some of the greatest moments come when people lose, badly, but struggle on to finish. Put it a different way. Winning an Olympic bronze medal is just losing in the semis of a Tier 2.5 tournament. In life, it's something else.

The Olympics just doesn't really belong on this scale.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Its not important for people who does'nt have a chance of winning a Gold but its as important to GS for those who won it.

That is an interesting point. How do those players ranked outside the top 30 or so who aren't realistically going to get that far in either a Slam or the Olympics place the Olympics in importance to their careers? I would actually disagree with you and suggest that I think for many of them it is more important than a Grand Slam. I think for many player who are ever going to win any huge titles just taking part in the Olympics, being part of the opening day parade, sharing time with athletes from many other sports and just experience the wonder of being involved in the biggest event in sports can be the highlight of their entire careers, much more than a Grand Slam which they will play 4 times a year.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:13 PM
How important the Olympics is, is something personal to an individual. The WTA wrote down their opinion when they assigned it points.

Henin got 750 for winning the YEC last year.
Serena got 500 for winning Miami.
Dementieva got 353 points for winning the Olympics. (More than a Tier II, less than a Tier I)But the Olympics is almost a .... it's a different thing. People value just participating in the Olympics. Some of the greatest moments come when people lose, badly, but struggle on to finish. Put it a different way. Winning an Olympic bronze medal is just losing in the semis of a Tier 2.5 tournament. In life, it's something else.

The Olympics just doesn't really belong on this scale.

Outstanding post. Fully agree. :yeah:

miffedmax
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:15 PM
How important the Olympics is, is something personal to an individual. The WTA wrote down their opinion when they assigned it points.

Henin got 750 for winning the YEC last year.
Serena got 500 for winning Miami.
Dementieva got 353 points for winning the Olympics. (More than a Tier II, less than a Tier I)But the Olympics is almost a .... it's a different thing. People value just participating in the Olympics. Some of the greatest moments come when people lose, badly, but struggle on to finish. Put it a different way. Winning an Olympic bronze medal is just losing in the semis of a Tier 2.5 tournament. In life, it's something else.

The Olympics just doesn't really belong on this scale.

I understand that's the way the WTA sees it, but that doesn't mean I can't respectfully disagree. I think the YEC is way overrated and the Olympics underrated.

The last two Olympics have seen much of the game's elite turn up to compete and like I said Lena made her way through a stronger field than she did at the last two majors (where admittedly she didn't win, but she did have to play six times).

I would expect the Olympics to be worth more points in the future.

Lunaris
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:18 PM
The hysteria around the olympics has died down, so people might be somewhat more objective in answering this question.
No answer can be objective. Every person is a subject, therefore their respective opinions and answers are always subjective. The only objective things are indisputable facts.
So this thread is completely pointless as the issue it deals with has been discussed too many times to count already and people can't be any more objective in their answers.

Volcana
Sep 9th, 2008, 06:57 PM
In a lot of sports, getting to participate in the Olympics isn't just a once-in-a-lifetime thing, it's pinnacle-of-a-lifetime thing.


It sure would be nice to be able to poll the players who've won ONE slam. Would Conchi, or Gabriella Sabatini, or Kim Clijsters trade their lone slam titles for an Olympic gold medal? Would Jana Novotna, after all she suffered to get it, trade her Wimbledon crown for an Olympic gold medal. Those four players could have played in the Olympics, though I don't know if they all did.


In my own case, if I had the choice, I'd take winning Wimbledon, just because when I close my eyes and imagine tennis, I still see the All-England club. (Although having all those people staring down at you in Ashe would be pretty cool too.)


EDIT: As soon as I submitted that post, I realized I had used the wrong measure. Given a choice, I'd rather participate in the Olympics. The Athletes Village, people from all over the world, the Opening Ceremonies ....


I guess it doesn't make much sense, but I'd rather win Wimbledon, but I'd rather participate in the Olympics.

miffedmax
Sep 9th, 2008, 07:03 PM
Actually, makes sense to me.

Though I'd rather hoist a World Cup than anything.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 07:05 PM
In a lot of sports, getting to participate in the Olympics isn't just a once-in-a-lifetime thing, it's pinnacle-of-a-lifetime thing.


It sure would be nice to be able to poll the players who've won ONE slam. Would Conchi, or Gabriella Sabatini, or Kim Clijsters trade their lone slam titles for an Olympic gold medal? Would Jana Novotna, after all she suffered to get it, trade her Wimbledon crown for an Olympic gold medal. Those four players could have played in the Olympics, though I don't know if they all did.


In my own case, if I had the choice, I'd take winning Wimbledon, just because when I close my eyes and imagine tennis, I still see the All-England club. (Although having all those people staring down at you in Ashe would be pretty cool too.)


EDIT: As soon as I submitted that post, I realized I had used the wrong measure. Given a choice, I'd rather participate in the Olympics. The Athletes Village, people from all over the world, the Opening Ceremonies ....


I guess it doesn't make much sense, but I'd rather win Wimbledon, but I'd rather participate in the Olympics.

Actually that makes a lot of sense. If someone told me I could be a 1st round loser just once and it could be at the Olympics or Wimbledon I'd take the Olympics in a secord. But if I could win one or the other Wimbledon would probably just edge it. That said the players in the next Olympics will have the best of both worlds as it will be taking place in Wimbledon. :bounce:

sammy01
Sep 9th, 2008, 07:07 PM
i cant believe people dont rate the YEC. you have to play 5 matches against top 10 players in a row to win it. no other event comes close to that kind of tough road to a title. to me the YEC are above the olympics.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 07:23 PM
i cant believe people dont rate the YEC. you have to play 5 matches against top 10 players in a row to win it. no other event comes close to that kind of tough road to a title. to me the YEC are above the olympics.

Firstly, you don't have to win 5 matches to win it. You can more often than not drop one of your 1st three matches and still get in the Semi Finals. Secondly the players themselves are often tired, some don't even show up and frequently a player can expect to get one or even two easy matches in the early stages. It counts for something but it's not that big a deal I say.

But in one way it is quite similar to the Olympics. Just being able to participate is very important and a major goal for many players.

sammy01
Sep 9th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Firstly, you don't have to win 5 matches to win it. You can more often than not drop one of your 1st three matches and still get in the Semi Finals. Secondly the players themselves are often tired, some don't even show up and frequently a player can expect to get one or even two easy matches in the early stages. It counts for something but it's not that big a deal I say.

But in one way it is quite similar to the Olympics. Just being able to participate is very important and a major goal for many players.

i said 'play' 5 matches against top 10 players not win. also sharapova had 7 straight foreward, straight sets matches this year at the oz open, that dosen't mean her draw was easy. so even if a player has an easy win early in the YEC it will certainly not be against lesser players.

the fact that players may be tierd only adds to how difficult it is to win in my eyes.

Edinboro
Sep 9th, 2008, 08:00 PM
WImbledon > US Open > French Open > Olympics > Australia > YEC.

homogenius
Sep 9th, 2008, 08:15 PM
Olympics = YEC >>> any Tier I (Miami may be the biggest Tier I but it's still not a "5th slam" or whatever those who market it want to call it).

Olympics is far more prestigious than YEC but it's less meaningfull in tennis than in other sports (+ the YEC is the most important event after the slams) so I rate them about equal.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 9th, 2008, 08:16 PM
i said 'play' 5 matches against top 10 players not win. also sharapova had 7 straight foreward, straight sets matches this year at the oz open, that dosen't mean her draw was easy. so even if a player has an easy win early in the YEC it will certainly not be against lesser players.

the fact that players may be tierd only adds to how difficult it is to win in my eyes.

Okay fair enough. There's definately room for different opinions on this.....

fatty sausage
Sep 9th, 2008, 08:24 PM
wow...interesting how everyone has different opinions on the Olympics. For me, I could care less about the Olympics. I turned the station whenever it was on TV b/c I can watch tennis anytime of the year--it is just not that special. Infact, they can drop tennis from the Olympics and I wouldn't mind.

AndreConrad
Sep 9th, 2008, 08:34 PM
How important the Olympics is, is something personal to an individual. The WTA wrote down their opinion when they assigned it points.

Henin got 750 for winning the YEC last year.
Serena got 500 for winning Miami.
Dementieva got 353 points for winning the Olympics. (More than a Tier II, less than a Tier I)But the Olympics is almost a .... it's a different thing. People value just participating in the Olympics. Some of the greatest moments come when people lose, badly, but struggle on to finish. Put it a different way. Winning an Olympic bronze medal is just losing in the semis of a Tier 2.5 tournament. In life, it's something else.

The Olympics just doesn't really belong on this scale.

Great post, absolutely agree; let me also quote myself from the past:

It is not the same as GS, but not less important. It is just different. Player doesn't get as many shots to win it and it is a dream of many. Olympic gold is like honorary title vs. GS is your professional title.

RFSTB
Sep 9th, 2008, 11:24 PM
First, the important thing about the Olympics is not to win but to participate. So arguing about whether an Olympic gold is worth more or less than a Slam is missing the point IMO. The experience of competing alongside 11,000 of the worlds' best athletes on the world's biggest stage far exceeds anything a tennis player will ever experience in any Slam. Just compare the Olympic opening ceremony to the opening of the US Open. The sheer scale of the Olympics is mind blowing. The slams are small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

Second, the Olympics is the biggest sporting event in the world. The Beijing Games were watched by 4.7 billion people around the world. In the US alone it was watched by 216 million people over 17 days. How many watch the the 4 slams combined each year? The US Open attracted a paltry 3.4 million viewers in the US the entire Labor day weekend. Not only that but tennis stars were treated like rock stars at the Olympics, often shown on camera during the parade of nations. So in terms of marketing and exposure for tennis players and the sport of tennis itself, the Olympics has a far bigger impact than any slam.

Third, how important is it for the players? The fact that all 8 women's quarterfinalists and all 4 men's semi-finalists played in Beijing is testament to the fact that this is an event many take seriously. It's not more or less than a slam. It shouldn't be measured that way. It is just an important event unto itself. Almost all top players get that, because they are first and foremost athletes. The Olympics appeal to the athletes in them. It's time the fans get that too.

That said, I'm really glad an Olympic gold is not considere the pinnacle of achievement in tennis. Look at all the sports where this is the case, gymnastics, T&F, swimming, skating...15 minutes of fame every 4 years. In btwn the Olympic years no one cares about these athletes or sports. So I'm glad tennis has established itself to a point where it stays relevant year round and every year.

Elisse
Sep 10th, 2008, 01:00 AM
Personally for me, the Olympic medal is more important than a Slam - I love the Olympics :hearts: Slams are played every year, whereas the Olympics is once every four years...some players will only ever get a chance to play in one Olympics in their whole career...some don't even get that chance.

I think the Olympics are also important for another reason, it's not just another sporting event...it is the top sporting event, a piece of history and for most people, it is a dream to even be able to compete, let alone to be able to win a medal. I know (myself included) that a lot of people find the Olympics a very emotional thing, I don't feel that emotion about the Slams, even though they are exciting...it's different.

As for Dementieva winning the gold.....I think her winning is a perfect illustration of how the Olympics inspires some people. We all know she has been so close to winning the top tournies in her career..but never quite made it. But to see her win the gold..that really seems a very fitting title for her win, seeing as she is a big sentimental favorite of many of the posters here on the board. So I certainly don't see her gold medal as being infuriour to a Slam title, the matches in Beijing were played in tough conditions.......extreme humidity, pollution, rain delays, bad scheduling etc... it was not easy. So the players who managed to get to the latter stages of the events, definately deserved the medals that they won!! :worship:

dany.p
Sep 10th, 2008, 01:02 AM
No answer can be objective. Every person is a subject, therefore their respective opinions and answers are always subjective. The only objective things are indisputable facts.
So this thread is completely pointless as the issue it deals with has been discussed too many times to count already and people can't be any more objective in their answers.

Where did i say people answers would be objective??? all i said was posters might be more objective. There's a difference.

dany.p
Sep 10th, 2008, 01:12 AM
Also, a few posters are saying that having Elena win in no way diminishes the olympics prestige, and i totally agree. Having a player ranked outside the top 50 (it's an extreme example, but still) win a grandslam says more about the player, then it does about the tournament. I bought it up in the initial post because i wanted to see what peoples opinions were on the issue.

Lunaris
Sep 10th, 2008, 07:05 AM
Where did i say people answers would be objective??? all i said was posters might be more objective. There's a difference.
And I told you that people are always subjective therefore they can't be more objective.

Navratil
Sep 10th, 2008, 10:09 AM
It's not a Grand-Slam!!

Probably the same importance as the Masters!

dany.p
Sep 10th, 2008, 10:26 AM
And I told you that people are always subjective therefore they can't be more objective.

I disagree. i think people can be more objective. As human beings, we're inherently biased, but still if your aware of ways in which you are biased, you can undertake measures to overcome this. At least that's what i was taught in psychology.

In regards to actual issue, what i was trying to say is that during the olympics, people may have over-evaluated the importance of it by getting caught up in the excitment of it all. now that its over, and the excitments died down, i can assume that some posters will be able to reflect on the question a bit more accurately. I'm sorry if this didn't come across more clearly in my post.

frenchie
Sep 10th, 2008, 10:45 AM
GS > Olympics = YEC > Tier1

azza
Sep 10th, 2008, 12:05 PM
who the hell is Wazza

Kworb
Sep 10th, 2008, 02:57 PM
Olympic Gold is the best thing a tennis player can achieve. The Slams are nothing in comparison. A tennis player is only legendary if she has won Olympic Gold.

In singles.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Sep 10th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Olympic Gold is the best thing a tennis player can achieve. The Slams are nothing in comparison. A tennis player is only legendary if she has won Olympic Gold.

In singles.

The OG which you are talking about, you can only get it in the year 2000...:worship: venus :worship: