Total revisionist history. Slams are more important than the Olympics. The Olympics have increased in prestige in the last decade but players didn't give a damn about them in 1988.
The players probably value grand slams higher than olympics, yes, but is that really how it should
be? As an athlete, regardless of the sport, I'd value winning an event like that much more than an event that I can win 4 of every year. And no other competition really gathers so many people around the globe as the olympics, it really is the pinnacle in sports overall.
Someone mentioned that it's much harder winning a grand slam than the olympics, and I really can't see that? Where's the logic in that statement, honestly? You have 16 chances (GS) v 1 chance (OG) in 4 years, and yet you believe it's easier to win on that ONE CHANCE than the other 16? Retarded logic. Just ask Federer how hard it is. One bad day and you don't get another chance until 4 years later, in a whole career you might get 3 chances at best - that leaves very little room for error.
Different strokes for different folks though, but no doubt that I'd value an Olympic Gold medal higher than a Grand Slam win. Much, much higher.