I agree. It is useless. But all I'm saying is if one's trying to argue that Fed's doubles gold and singles silver somehow elevates him above Nadal at the Olympics or that Murray's mixed dubs silver is relevant, at all, then let's just have any old argument - Nadal won it at his first attempt - Fed's had 4 and still not won it.
The fact is there is a LOT of luck involved with the Olympics - once every 4 years, best of 3 till the final - but over 4 outings you'd think it would be enough for Fed. He didn't win it. Why not just accept that this is something that Nadal has that is better than Federer rather than clinging to that doubles gold for dear life?
The first paragraph does not bring any value or relevance to your argument. As for the second one, it is a fact that both Murray and Federer have an extra silver to go with their gold. People have to just accept those facts.