But Olympics are far bigger than tennis. Winning the Olympic gold medal is a far greater achievement for a sportsman than winning any tennis tournament. People debating whether it's an important achievement for tennis greatness are completely missing the point.
Olympics are just much bigger than any single sport. If you don't believe me, believe Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Every sportsman worth his salt dreams of one day winning an Olympic gold medal. Even Messi cites it as his proudest achievement in his football career.
Discussing ranking points, importance for tennis greatness, etc... only shows people have no idea what the Olympic Games mean for a sportsman.
Look, I thought we were on a tennis forum so discussing the Olympics in a tennis context is correct
, no matter how you twist and turn it. To give a more pertinent example let's look at the case of football. The gold medal there does not matter at all. You have some youngsters playing with 2 or 3 pensioners.
In tennis terms, the Olympics is not an important event. It's important in London because it's played at Wimbledon. This, again, just illustrates the fact that the history of the venue is important and not the occasion. And where does this history really come from? You guessed it right - Wimbledon being, arguably, the most special slam.
You also cannot compare the Olympics in tennis with other events as the Olympics are the MAJOR goal of many athletes in athletics. Really, you're comparing oranges with apples when talking about the Olympics as a whole. Every sport has a different Olympic tradition and tennis's is not great.
That's the last I'll try to convince you of this.