PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the Olympics should get more ranking points?


Henpova
Jul 7th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Both the ATP and the WTA give out ranking points to the Olympics. I for one feel that the points given are to low for how big of a event the Olympics are. So do you think the Men and Women should give out more points then they already get for the Olympics?

ATP WTA
Gold 750 685
Sliver 450 470
Bronze 340 340
4th 270 260
Q 135 175
3R 70 95
2R 35 55
1r 5 1

I for one think that the rankings should be at lest a 1500 points. I would bet most player would say it is the biggest tittle out side of the slams and it should be treated as such. I know some people think it should not be ranked at all because it is not a ATP or WTA event but neither are the slams so what is the difference. That is just the way I see it. Let me know what you think.

Cajka
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:08 PM
No points at all. It's not a regular tournament and players don't shouldn't care about the ranking points. The medal is the most important.

Excelscior
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Personally, I think it should be more than the slams. It's so prestigious and only happens once every 4 years. But I guess the ITF couldn't deal with a tournament being worth more than the Grandslams (albeit once every 4 yrs).

Why put the players through all that (especially after Wimbledon) just to pick up 600+ points?

Sounds dumb!

debopero
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:10 PM
^The Olympics are not the biggest tennis tournment though...

tennisbum79
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:11 PM
All the best players are not necessarily represented.

Countries with many good players are not allowed to bring all of them.

Henpova
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:19 PM
All the best players are not necessarily represented.

Countries with many good players are not allowed to bring all of them.

Each Country will get 4 player...and the Olympics dose some thing like this with almost all the events. That way one Country can dominate the event. At lest it is better then gymnastics where only two can represent a country in the finals round of individual events.

So only a couple of players at most won't be able to go.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:20 PM
I don't think they should get any points to be quite honest. The chance of medaling should be the reward.

Leelee.
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:23 PM
No points. It's silly adding ranking points to country competitions like this. It's also not fair to some players who are penalized just for the country they're from.

backhandsmash
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:29 PM
No points. It's silly adding ranking points to country competitions like this. It's also not fair to some players who are penalized just for the country they're from.

Yeah, nailed it.

Lucemferre
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Olympic whining again?:rolleyes: Some people insist on not getting this but Olympics will never be the biggest tournament in tennis.It's just a glorified Premier at best with more sentimental meaning than anything.Prestige? :lol: Olympic gold medal sure has prestige but it's like

'wow you're an olympic gold medalist?!!?1'
'yes'
'in what discipline?'
'tennis'
'oh ok then..'

It's just the name that gets people confused. Grand Slam is the biggest achievement in tennis and it will never change.

tennisbum79
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:32 PM
Each Country will get 4 player...and the Olympics dose some thing like this with almost all the events. That way one Country can dominate the event. At lest it is better then gymnastics where only two can represent a country in the finals round of individual events.

So only a couple of players at most won't be able to go.
And I believe that only 2 are allowed to play singles.
Take Russian few Olympics ago, where Russia had about about 20 players in the top 50 of WTA ranking, but they will only bring 4 of them.

On the other hand, Madagascar will bring 4 players if the country choses to.
Has Russia brought all of its players, it is conceivabe, that that you could find 8 of them in the round of 16.

The good players left at home will not be able to get any point, but players from Madagscar who is ranked in 300 can.

Certinfy
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:33 PM
No points.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:38 PM
I think 1000 for the Gold Medalist IMO :shrug:

ElusiveChanteuse
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:43 PM
Agree with no points given because not all players will participate and it'll be unfair for those who couldn't get the chance to play.

Henpova
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:45 PM
And I lbeleive that only 2 are allowed to play singles.
Take Russian few Olympics ago, where Russia had about about 20 players in the top 50 of WTA ranking, but they will only bring 4 of them.

On the other hand, Madagascar will pring 4 players if the country choses to.
Has Russia brought all of its players, it is conceivabe, that that you could find 8 of them in the round of 16.

The good players left at home will not be able to get any point, but players from Madagscar who is ranked in 300 can.

It is 4 because if it where only two how in the hell did Russia win all the medals last time around in women's singles..you get 4 singles and two doubles teams...and at the next one they will also have mixed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics)

Olympic whining again?:rolleyes: Some people insist on not getting this but Olympics will never be the biggest tournament in tennis.It's just a glorified Premier at best with more sentimental meaning than anything.Prestige? :lol: Olympic gold medal sure has prestige but it's like

'wow you're an olympic gold medalist?!!?1'
'yes'
'in what discipline?'
'tennis'
'oh ok then..'

It's just the name that gets people confused. Grand Slam is the biggest achievement in tennis and it will never change.

I think it is a small amount of people who think the Olympics is bigger then Slams...so no whining here.

tennisbum79
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:54 PM
It is 4 because if it where only two how in the hell did Russia win all the medals last time around in women's singles..you get 4 singles and two doubles teams...and at the next one they will also have mixed as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics)



Don't direct this post to me, direct to posters who thinks Olympic should award more points.

I am arguing, to justify awarding point, ALL os the best players in the world should be allowed to participate.
But current Olympic system is not set up for that.

goldenlox
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:01 PM
Every big tournament has a ranking cutoff point. This one might cut off a top 20 player, if her country has 5 top 20 players.
Then use the week to get ready for the next tournament.
I say at least as many points as IW/Madrid/Beijing/Miami.

C. Drone
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:03 PM
well, if somebody can't participate Olympics, there is an International level tournament at the same week in the calendar. :shrug:
"Troy Park Women’s Tennis Championships – Elkridge"

personally, i would give ~500pts, just like a Premier-700k event.

tennisbum79
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Every big tournament has a ranking cutoff point. This one might cut off a top 20 player, if her country has 5 top 20 players.
Then use the week to get ready for the next tournament.
I say at least as many points as IW/Madrid/Beijing/Miami.
I understand that is the olympic way of doing things.
And that is OK, but they should not award points, because the other 15 players were not given an opportunity to get any point by the system you outlined.
From have learned on the WTA, someone ranked low could win any events over players ranked higher.

Henpova
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Don't direct this post to me, direct to posters who thinks Olympic should award more points.

I am arguing, to justify awarding point, ALL os the best players in the world should be allowed to participate.
But current Olympic system is not set up for that.

No I did direct this post at you because you said only two make it from each country and it is four. You are completely entitled to you opinion. I just was giving you the correct facts.

Also...all tournaments have cut off with rankings this one just had one extra rule...all this one say is the top 56 get in unless there is more then four from one country then it will keep going down the ranking until all 56 spots are filled plus 8 wildcards. The only country that really has a problem with this is Russia.

Leelee.
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:19 PM
Bovina was screwed in '04 because of that. NEVER FORGET~

tennisbum79
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:19 PM
No I did direct this post at you because you said only two make it from each country and it is four. You are completely entitled to you opinion. I just was giving you the correct facts.

Also...all tournaments have cut off with rankings this one just had one extra rule...all this one say is the top 56 get in unless there is more then four from one country then it will keep going down the ranking until all 56 spots are filled plus 8 wildcards. The only country that really has a problem with this is Russia.
WRONG, I said out of the 4 players each country is allowed to enter, only 2 are allowed to participate to the singles.

Russia has a good case having probme with, they have mnay accomplished players in the top 50.

There was year where it was a headache for the US as well.
We have The WS, Capriati, Davenport, Seles, Lisa Raymond, all of them having chance to get to the round of 16.
Forcing the US to pick FOUR of these players is not fair, especially if awarding WTA ranking points is on the line.

Mistress of Evil
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:31 PM
No :lol: kinda stupid, useless and pointless question :awww:

Henpova
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:42 PM
WRONG, I said out of the 4 players each country is allowed to enter, only 2 are allowed to participate to the singles.


But Four players are allowed in singles!! NOT TWO!!!...Then You Get Four Players in Doubles making two teams...

If there was only two players allowed to play singles then how did Dementieva win the gold, Safina the win Silver and Vera the win Bronze at the 08 Games....all playing for Russia!

I get your point on the cut off...but at lest get the fact about how manly players can play singles right...

Matt01
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:50 PM
well, if somebody can't participate Olympics, there is an International level tournament at the same week in the calendar. :shrug:
"Troy Park Women’s Tennis Championships – Elkridge"


Seriously?

C. Drone
Jul 7th, 2011, 08:08 PM
Seriously?

why not? :shrug:
in 2008 there was Cincinnati Tier-III at the same week, i think Petrova won it.

bobito
Jul 7th, 2011, 08:10 PM
I believe the points should match the prestige of the event. Zero.

I am always amazed that tennis players should want to demean themselves by taking part in the Olympics. Tennis is a sport that requires a full compliment of athletic abilities (speed, stamina, agility & strength), great skill, tactical nous and mental strength. Yet the elite of the game are willing to play second fiddle to a bunch of steroidal freaks running in a straight line for 9˝ seconds.

Elisse
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:25 PM
No points at all - to qualify for Olympics you have to play Fed Cup (for the women) and also smaller tennis countries get to take part (Iran etc..) These players wouldn't nesessarily qualify to play a regular tournament or Slam through ranking points....so I don't think there should be any points at all for playing Olympics. Players don't get points for Fed Cup/Davis Cup, it's just seen as a privilage to play for your country and Olympics should be the same too (also, Olympics always was an event meant for amateurs, not professionals)

Malkmus_
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:28 PM
No points. I don't agree with Tennis being in the Olympics.

Apoleb
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:31 PM
They should remove it from the Olympics or have non-professionals fight it out.

lefty24
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:32 PM
I believe the points should match the prestige of the event. Zero.

I am always amazed that tennis players should want to demean themselves by taking part in the Olympics. Tennis is a sport that requires a full compliment of athletic abilities (speed, stamina, agility & strength), great skill, tactical nous and mental strength. Yet the elite of the game are willing to play second fiddle to a bunch of steroidal freaks running in a straight line for 9˝ seconds.

Are you serious?

Lets see a tennis player try and run a marathon. :rolleyes:

or tumbling on a beam that can't even fit both feet? or doing a back with a full twist?

yeah seriously they can do all of that so they shouldn't even be in the Olympics

Potato
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Since the Olympics are the biggest prize of SPORTS, but not the in tennis, I believe it should be zero. The prestige of getting the Gold means more than some silly ranking points.

Solitaire
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:47 PM
No points at all. I can't stand the Olympics and dread Olympic years.

GoofyDuck
Jul 7th, 2011, 10:04 PM
It's kinda unfair for the people that are unable to participate and miss a chance for points .

Smitten
Jul 7th, 2011, 10:13 PM
500 points for a W is enough. It's basically a glorified Tier II anyway.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:02 AM
I for one think that the rankings should be at lest a 1500 points. I would bet most player would say it is the biggest tittle out side of the slams and it should be treated as such. I know some people think it should not be ranked at all because it is not a ATP or WTA event but neither are the slams so what is the difference. That is just the way I see it. Let me know what you think.
I agree. 1250-1500 points sounds about right to me. The point that some make about not all players being able to participate is a valid one though.

DeliriousPotato
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:06 AM
500 points for a W is enough. It's basically a glorified Tier II anyway.

This. :shrug:

Graftard
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:40 AM
No points. It may be a big prize, but the fact that it's once every 4 years doesn't make it very friendly to tennis ranking system.

KBlade
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:45 AM
How long do the points remain on the ranking system given the Olympics only comes around every 4 years? :help:

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:45 AM
It's not the medal. Or the points. It's to be considered almost worthy to kiss the soles of Dementieva's shoes.

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:18 AM
1000 points for win seems fair. Like a PM (or Masters 1000).

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:18 AM
It's not the medal. Or the points. It's to be considered almost worthy to kiss the soles of Dementieva's shoes.
True. :worship:

UncleZeke
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:29 AM
No points

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:51 AM
3000 for the Winner.
Haters can hate, but the Olympics is the most prized thing in sport full-stop.
Last time I checked, tennis was a sport.

archie4
Jul 8th, 2011, 05:20 AM
I think if the WTA is going to give ranking points for participating in the Olympics, at least 1000 points should be awarded to the winner. I would actually be in favor of awarding 1500 or 2000 points (like Grand Slams), but that seems unlikely. 1000 points are currently given to the winners of the Premier Mandatory events (Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, and Beijing). The draw size at the Olympics is 64 for singles and 32 for doubles, which is basically the same as both Madrid and Beijing. (Indian Wells and Miami have that odd extra first round for players ranked between 33 and 96.)

It would be silly to not award any ranking points for the Olympic tournament. The WTA rankings show which players have statistically been the strongest throughout the calendar year (not just the Grand Slams). To omit the Olympic tournament from the rankings would be like omiting Wimbledon. You are omiting some pretty huge data if you take the Olympics out of the mix. This has nothing to do with compensation, etc. The Olympics are about playing for your country and playing for a medal. Giving ranking points doesn't take that away, it only gives the WTA better ranking data.

archie4
Jul 8th, 2011, 05:24 AM
500 points for a W is enough. It's basically a glorified Tier II anyway.
I hope you are kidding. This is the biggest sporting event on the planet. The big names all show up for the Olympics, just like they would for a Grand Slam. The singles tournament is a 64 draw, which is more than all Tier IIs and just one round less than the slams.

Smitten
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:16 AM
I hope you are kidding. This is the biggest sporting event on the planet. The big names all show up for the Olympics, just like they would for a Grand Slam. .

:spit: All these lies.

Several top players have skipped the Olympics even in present day on both the men's and women's side. The Olympics is a glorified Tier II and should be rewarded as such. I'd give the winner 500 points for their trouble not a single point more.

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:36 PM
:spit: All these lies.

Several top players have skipped the Olympics even in present day on both the men's and women's side. The Olympics is a glorified Tier II and should be rewarded as such. I'd give the winner 500 points for their trouble not a single point more.

http://ximages.net/images/73419253566416278754.gif

1900 - Charlotte Cooper.
1908 - Dorothea Douglass Chambers.
1920 - Suzanne Lenglen.
1924 - Helen Wills.
1988 - Steffi Graf.
1992 - Jennifer Capriati.
1996 - Lindsay Davenport.
2000 - Venus Williams.
2004 - Justine Henin.
2008 - Elena Dementieva.

You know what your problem is.. you don't look at the FACTS. "Several top players have skipped the Olympics" Then why is there such a prestige champion list? "The Olympics is a glorified Tier II" Hmmmm.. yes, when there are players like Rezai winning Tier I tournaments..

*dusts hands*
next?

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2011, 06:07 PM
1900 - Charlotte Cooper.
1908 - Dorothea Douglass Chambers.
1920 - Suzanne Lenglen.
1924 - Helen Wills.
1988 - Steffi Graf.
1992 - Jennifer Capriati.
1996 - Lindsay Davenport.
2000 - Venus Williams.
2004 - Justine Henin.
2008 - Elena Dementieva.

You know what your problem is.. you don't look at the FACTS. "Several top players have skipped the Olympics" Then why is there such a prestige champion list? "The Olympics is a glorified Tier II" Hmmmm.. yes, when there are players like Rezai winning Tier I tournaments..

*dusts hands*
next?


:facepalm: Just because there is a prestige Champion list, that doesn't mean that there aren't several top player in the past who have skipped the Olympics.

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 06:09 PM
:facepalm: Just because there is a prestige Champion list, that doesn't mean that there aren't several top player in the past who have skipped the Olympics.

List them then..

miffedmax
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:02 PM
Several players have skipped slams and Premiers as well. Henin and Dementieva's runs in '04 and '08 were tougher than some recent runs at majors and premier events. (And I'm nearly as biased against Henin as I am for Dementieva. Okay, no, I'm not because that would mean hating her with an all-consuming passion, which I don't. But I'm certainly not an Henin fan. I'm enough of a non-Henin fan that I'm not going to give her credit for something unless I really have to).

Malkmus_
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:22 PM
This is the biggest sporting event on the planet.

The FIFA World Cup is bigger. The Olympics is just a bunch of minority sports that no one cares about or watches, save for two weeks every four years.

Malkmus_
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:24 PM
1900 - Charlotte Cooper.
1908 - Dorothea Douglass Chambers.
1920 - Suzanne Lenglen.
1924 - Helen Wills.
1988 - Steffi Graf.
1992 - Jennifer Capriati.
1996 - Lindsay Davenport.
2000 - Venus Williams.
2004 - Justine Henin.
2008 - Elena Dementieva.


How people can compare it to the Prestige of winning a Slam is beyond me. The fact that Tennis was missing from the Olympics for 64 years is enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Not to mention, the amount of all-time greats who never got the opportunity to play in the Olympics as well.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:51 PM
List them then..


Hingis, Seles, Navratilova, even Serena IIRC...

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 08:57 PM
The FIFA World Cup is bigger. The Olympics is just a bunch of minority sports that no one cares about or watches, save for two weeks every four years.

'minority sports'

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmb087iQXZ1qislb7.gif

Stay mad and pressed.

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 08:58 PM
Hingis, Seles, Navratilova, even Serena IIRC...

Boo they've all played in the Olympics..

Malkmus_
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:02 PM
'minority sports'

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmb087iQXZ1qislb7.gif

Stay mad and pressed.

Yes. When do you ever see the likes of Weightlifting, Canoeing, Volleyball and Water Polo on the TV?
The only OLYMPIC sport that I'd say is popular outside the games, is Athletics.

duhcity
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:03 PM
WRONG, I said out of the 4 players each country is allowed to enter, only 2 are allowed to participate to the singles.

Russia has a good case having probme with, they have mnay accomplished players in the top 50.

But Four players are allowed in singles!! NOT TWO!!!...Then You Get Four Players in Doubles making two teams...

If there was only two players allowed to play singles then how did Dementieva win the gold, Safina the win Silver and Vera the win Bronze at the 08 Games....all playing for Russia!

I get your point on the cut off...but at lest get the fact about how manly players can play singles right...

How did everyone else miss this priceless bit :lol:

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:04 PM
Boo they've all played in the Olympics..


But they also skipped it. Why would they do that if the Olympcis were so prestigous?

BTW, I find your username offensive.

s teddy
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:14 PM
The Olympics shouldn't give any points. You say that it should give points because it's so prestigious, but there's no reason for that. The players are going to care much more about getting a medal than they do about rankings points. As several posters have said already, points from the Olympics mess up the rankings and are unfair to those who can't get on their countries' teams.

Serenus Christ
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:17 PM
Yes. When do you ever see the likes of Weightlifting, Canoeing, Volleyball and Water Polo on the TV?
The only OLYMPIC sport that I'd say is popular outside the games, is Athletics.

Yes volleyball, the second most played sport in the world! silly me :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you mean by OLYMPIC sport, but what about swimming? gymnastics? basketball? cycling?
come up with some more factual information instead of vomiting garbage.

But they also skipped it. Why would they do that if the Olympcis were so prestigous?

BTW, I find your username offensive.

Because they were injured or couldn't play for whatever reason?

and what's so 'offensive' about my username?

Malkmus_
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Yes volleyball, the second most played sport in the world! silly me :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you mean by OLYMPIC sport, but what about swimming? gymnastics? basketball? cycling?
come up with some more factual information instead of vomiting garbage.

:rolleyes: Thanks for ignoring the bit about when is 'Volleyball on the TV?' If the amount of people who play it only counts, then it MUST be the second most popular sport in the world of course. :lol: It's the type of sport they make you participate in in PE, so of course it will have high participation levels. I've played it myself, but I would never watch it on TV in a million years.

An Olympic sport is a sport where the Gold Medal is the pinnacle of the sport. Basketball it isn't and for Road Cycling it's the Tour de France. I may give you Track cycling, but as I said earlier, when do you see it on TV bar the Olympics.? The World Championships is the only other time. The same goes for Swimming and Gymnastics.