Importance of doubles' Olympic gold [Archive] -

Importance of doubles' Olympic gold

07-14-2012, 08:20 PM
What do you think, how important title doubles' Olympic gold is? Olympic doubles have enabled GS winners like Federer, Becker, Stich, and Serena Williams become Olympic gold medalists. And of Serena's doubles titles, Olympic gold is maybe the most remarkable, as she hasn't won singles' gold.

Also, what do you think about how hard it's to win doubles gold compared to a slam's doubles title. Olympics are the biggest tournament in doubles where we have the best singles players attending. Does that make it harder to win?

07-15-2012, 09:19 AM
It's not important. Singles medal is what matters

07-16-2012, 03:50 PM
Of course, it's less important than the singles gold medal. But I think it's much more important than i.e. an doubles slam title. Many top singles players are trying hard to win an olympic gold medal - and they take doubles if they can't win in singles.

07-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Wimbledon and the Olympics are clearly the two most important doubles titles.

For all their faults, the Wimbledon organisers treat doubles tennis with far more respect and scheduling importance than their counterparts at the other 3 slams. Plus the Wimbledon doubles tournament is best of 5 sets all the way through the draw, while the other 3 slams are best of 3 sets from start to finish. Thus for doubles Wimbledon easily tops the other 3 slams.

The olympic doubles tournament is special as many of the best singles players participate it in and treat it very seriously. While doubles tennis is a sideshow at the slams, at the olympics it is still very important as there is the lure of getting a gold medal around your neck, seeing your national flag being raised and contributing to your country's overall medal tally. Many players are trying hard to win the gold medal in both singles and doubles, which Massú achieved in 2004.

I bet far more people know and care about González/Massú winning the olympic doubles gold medal in 2004, than Knowles/Nestor winning the US Open doubles title a few weeks later for instance.

Plus the olympic doubles final is best of 5 sets unlike the finals at all the slams apart from Wimbledon.

mike s.
07-16-2012, 07:01 PM
I think the Olympics are very different from the slams. A gold medal is a gold medal. You don't rank events based on their importance like you do on the regular tour. A gold medal in badminton is the same as fencing is the same as swimming. There's no real difference. Of course, individually players may put more emphasis on one event or the other but in the history books you'll always be considered an Olympics gold medalist regardless. That being said, you can be sure that Federer for example, cares much more about getting an Olympics singles gold than he did winning doubles but for the Bryan's or whoever I think it's an equal achievement.

07-16-2012, 09:53 PM
Every player in the top 8 is currently listed in the doubles draw in the Olympics. Not one of them ever enters the doubles draw at the majors. Even a player not in the men's doubles draw, such as del Potro, is pushing for a mixed doubles spot.

I have to think the reasoning is a gold medal is a gold medal.

08-06-2012, 01:42 PM
It's not important. Singles medal is what matters

You mean to say that's why Leander Paes hasn't won a Doubles medal at Olympics?

IMO, Medal in Olympics is a Medal. No matter if you win in any discipline.

08-06-2012, 01:51 PM
Gold is Gold, no matters what discipline,sport or whatever zzz, even Murray said that.

08-06-2012, 04:04 PM
It's more like honorary thing for tennis.
It's a gold medal and it doesn't equate to slam championships.