Olympics are very close to slams importance wise! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Olympics are very close to slams importance wise!

severus
08-04-2012, 01:59 PM
Let's be real about something here Olympics are million times more important than regular Masters series and 10 times more important than WTF and it's only getting bigger. One day it will be the most important tennis tournament, bigger than slams.

Chirag
08-04-2012, 02:11 PM
:haha:

leng jai
08-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Only muggles disagree.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-04-2012, 02:15 PM
*when played at a slam venue an Olympic is as valuable as a slam
when played at some random venue its not even worth a masters event

Steelq
08-04-2012, 02:18 PM
How many points u get for winning Olympics, how much money?

PitsOfTheWorld
08-04-2012, 02:19 PM
How many points u get for winning Olympics, how much money?

750 points (which is ridiculous; it should be at least 1000)
No money.

thrust
08-04-2012, 02:21 PM
*when played at a slam venue an Olympic is as valuable as a slam
when played at some random venue its not even worth a masters event

It is still Olympic Tennis, no matter where it is played.

Johnny Groove
08-04-2012, 02:21 PM
How many points u get for winning Olympics, how much money?

Olympics are worth more than points and money.

Djokovic said he felt more disappointed losing SF of Olympics than in SF of Wimbledon.

Murray and Federer, both have said it is as important as a slam, if not more so.

Del Potro, you could see how much it meant to him.

Olympics needs to give 1250 points to winner.

Blue Heart24
08-04-2012, 02:24 PM
Olympics are certainly bigger than Masters.It's not even debatable.The same goes for Slams being absolutely the top.

cmoss
08-04-2012, 02:27 PM
It's once in 4 years.They should make it bigger,change to 5 setter, 2000 points and no need for money.:wavey:

Mercury
08-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Olympics have that extra special feeling being only every 4 years and the very few chances you have of making a medal compared to other tournaments. Score wise it might be less than a 1000s event but when it's played in a slam venue it's just so obvious that it's so much bigger than any 1000s event and easily rivals WTF.

ATP need to realize the Olympics are getting bigger and make it worth more points (someone here said 1250 and that sounds perfect to me). Also, from now on, only slam countries should host the Olympics :D

BroTree123
08-04-2012, 02:30 PM
Olympics is the "5th slam" IMO.

Andy1402
08-04-2012, 02:30 PM
There is no comparison between slams and Olympics.
Olympics are played for national glory and hold a completely different importance for a player. They do not give too many points or money, but every player still dreams of being an Olympic gold medallist.
As far as one's career is concerned, the slams are definitely infinitely more important.
I think the two should not be compared at all.

buzz
08-04-2012, 02:30 PM
A one week best of three set(except for final) tournament will never be close to slam importance.

hipolymer
08-04-2012, 02:35 PM
Thread creator has to be a Fedtard.

severus
08-04-2012, 02:37 PM
A one week best of three set(except for final) tournament will never be close to slam importance.

No tiebreak in 3rd set though and it already produced best 3setter ever IMO.:eek:

IOFH
08-04-2012, 02:38 PM
Let's be real about something here Olympics are million times more important than regular Masters series and 10 times more important than WTF and it's only getting bigger.

:spit:

One day it will be the most important tennis tournament, bigger than slams.

No it won't.

Action Jackson
08-04-2012, 02:43 PM
Get rid of the ranking points and the OP is trolling.

Chris Kuerten
08-04-2012, 02:47 PM
It's the biggest non-slam tournament already and it will only become more important, but I don't think it will ever surpass the Grand Slams.

swisht4u
08-04-2012, 02:47 PM
The olympics isn't that important on the players resume.

It doesn't matter how the players feel about it, that has no bearing at all.

It doesn't matter how much the fans like it, some of those matches had pitiful turnouts anyways.

The main interest for me was the dynamics this time of Murray doing well at home and Djokovic trying to get to #1 again.
DelPo doing well was a bonus.
But this would have been any tournament.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming masters more, however Toronto looks to have a poor player turnout so for me the Olympics was more interesting this time.

I enjoyed the SF matches a great deal and the effort the players gave kept me watching every point.

coluta
08-04-2012, 02:51 PM
The olympics isn't that important on the players resume.

It doesn't matter how the players feel about it, that has no bearing at all.

It doesn't matter how much the fans like it, some of those matches had pitiful turnouts anyways.


Then what matters? :eek::eek:

IOFH
08-04-2012, 02:56 PM
Then what matters? :eek::eek:

Players don't evaluate their own legacies after the end of their career to determine where they stand. Maybe for some of them Olympics will be a greater memory than anything else they did but that doesn't mean it will hold a big value in determining the greatness of that player.

rocketassist
08-04-2012, 02:56 PM
Then what matters? :eek::eek:

How he feels about it obviously. :lol:

Ash86
08-04-2012, 02:57 PM
Look at the reaction of every single player involved in these gold/bronze medal matches - they want it WAY more than a Masters series or WTF. Novak half tanked the WTF last year - he's been in tears over the Olympics. Murray cried getting to the final. Azarenka was ecstatic today just with a bronze medal.

All the top players are skipping Toronto without thinking much about it - for Nadal, skipping the Olympics was one of the toughest moments of his career. Points distribution doesn't define the importance of an event - how players treat it and approach it does. The Aus Open became more important as players started giving it more importance. Similarly the Olympics, with Beijing and now London having the top players fighting for it and really showing they want it, has gone up in the standings of importance within tennis.

It's still not near a slam but it's right after IMO. The uniqueness of it and rare opportunity to win it just makes it more special. To me, it's slams, then Olympics, then WTF and then Masters. No one who doesn't follow tennis closely knows what the WTF is or even knows who's won every year -- they will know who won the Olympic gold that year though as it's covered more extensively than other non-slam tournaments.

For me the tennis at the London Olympics has been a mixed bag - started bad but was redeemed by the two men's SFs to an extent - still think a new HC venue in the Olympic Park would have been better - BUT it's clear that the players REALLY really want a medal. Look at Gasquet in his bronze medal match in DOUBLES - he's never shown that level of passion even in Grand Slam matches. Olympics transcends tennis - simple.

Action Jackson
08-04-2012, 02:59 PM
How many of these would actually play if there were no points on offer? That's when you would get a proper indication of who wants to play it. No way points should be awarded for this or DC. These things can't be measured in that way, it's not like the Slams nor will it ever be, it's different and that's good.

Olympics are only prestigious when a big name wins it, you win a medal that's good enough.

TennisGrandSlam
08-04-2012, 02:59 PM
You prefer Slamless Olympic Gold (Dementieva) or Silver Grand Slam (MaSha) :devil:

RogerFan82
08-04-2012, 02:59 PM
The fact that Olympics seems important this time around is because it is being played at the home of tennis at Wimbledon.

There is no doubt that it is slowly gaining some relevance but it will never be as important as the Slams or WTF (where you have to win against fellow Top 8).

Just the fact that in Mixed Doubles, you need to just win 4 matches (3rd set is super tiebreak) to win the Gold , makes the value of winning gold medal laughable.

Ash86
08-04-2012, 03:03 PM
No tiebreak in 3rd set though and it already produced best 3setter ever IMO.:eek:

No. Longest three setter doesn't make it the best. Otherwise Isner/Mahut was the best 5 setter. Much of that third set was really really boring. Nadal/Djokovic Madrid 09 semi still best three setter in terms of quality and atmosphere by a mile. That also had a final set tiebreak so FAR fewer games than the match yesterday, yet was practically as long.

IOFH
08-04-2012, 03:03 PM
Wow, players value Olympic silver or Bronze more than 2nd place or SF in WTF? Never would've thought of that. :facepalm:

IOFH
08-04-2012, 03:05 PM
No. Longest three setter doesn't make it the best. Otherwise Isner/Mahut was the best 5 setter. Much of that third set was really really boring. Nadal/Djokovic Madrid 09 semi still best three setter in terms of quality and atmosphere by a mile. That also had a final set tiebreak so FAR fewer games than the match yesterday, yet was practically as long.

:spit:

That Madrid match was consistently poor tennis when talked about these 2 guys. Every Djodal clay-match since 2011 has been much better in terms of quality of play.

Edit: except MC 2012 but that was mostly bc Djokovic didn't (understandably) feel like giving a full effort.

RogerFan82
08-04-2012, 03:07 PM
Nice try by rafatards to constantly belittle the WTF. But the fact is, it is very difficult to win the event multiple times against your top rivals, and the fact that several great champions like Lendl, Sampras, Federer have managed to do that is indeed a feather to their cap.

Like Action Jackson stated, had the Olympics offered 0 points and not been held at Wimbledon, i would like to see how many Pros would have chosen it over Toronto.

Ash86
08-04-2012, 03:08 PM
:spit:

That Madrid match was consistently poor tennis when talked about these 2 guys. Every Djodal clay-match since 2011 has been much better in terms of quality of play.

Keep believing that - pretty much every tennis pundit will disagree with you. That was a dramatic exciting match with the end always in doubt. Yesterday it was clear Fed was going to win no matter how many times Delpo held serve. It was a serve dominated match. Go back and rewatch Madrid 09 - you'll enjoy some great baseline tennis. :wavey:

coluta
08-04-2012, 03:08 PM
Players don't evaluate their own legacies after the end of their career to determine where they stand. Maybe for some of them Olympics will be a greater memory than anything else they did but that doesn't mean it will hold a big value in determining the greatness of that player.

You mentioned both fans and players. If not theirs, then whose opinion matters?

MuzzahLovah
08-04-2012, 03:08 PM
It's once in 4 years.They should make it bigger,change to 5 setter, 2000 points and no need for money.:wavey:

No it should not be 5sets. No one would play the doubles- and seeing the top singles players play doubles and mixed for real is the best part o the Olympics. Its should be worth 1500 as it is.

MuzzahLovah
08-04-2012, 03:13 PM
And obviously The Olympics is the most important prestigious outside of the slams. If it wasn't there's no way all the top players would value it so much and play doubles etc given the inconvenient time it usually comes around.

IOFH
08-04-2012, 03:19 PM
Keep believing that - pretty much every tennis pundit will disagree with you. That was a dramatic exciting match with the end always in doubt. Yesterday it was clear Fed was going to win no matter how many times Delpo held serve. It was a serve dominated match. Go back and rewatch Madrid 09 - you'll enjoy some great baseline tennis. :wavey:

You said level of play, then backing up by saying Madrid was "dramatic exciting match with end always in doubt." Which I never debated (although it's best to cut out the tedium before 2nd set TB), but that has nothing to do with level of play. Djokovic was defensively much worse, had less stamina and his offensive skills on clay were much much worse than since 2011. Nadal was clearly feeling niggles and was playing uninspired, defensive clay-tennis.

"tennis pundits" obviously thought it was a great match bc of 4 hours (1 too much cos of the time-wasting) and Nadal saving MPs before winning. Nothing to do with the level of play, in '09 if Nadal was playing great Djokovic would've been no where near him on clay.

The best quality clay match they've played is obviously Rome 2011, every person with eyes would easily see that was just another level to Madrid 2009. Please go watch that and you may as well. :wavey:

IOFH
08-04-2012, 03:20 PM
You mentioned both fans and players. If not theirs, then whose opinion matters?

I didn't mention fans, someone else did.

swisht4u
08-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Then what matters? :eek::eek:

A large field matters, having it often enough to make a judgement of how a player's game suits the tournament.

It's only every four years and at different places, if a player is lucky it'll be on his surface and he'll be at his peak game.

It's just too random to make judgements of a players career based on it, so for me it loses it's importance career wise.

I like how it's had some side stories to it this year, Murray, the race for #1 etc.

Pratik
08-04-2012, 03:32 PM
Players don't evaluate their own legacies after the end of their career to determine where they stand. Maybe for some of them Olympics will be a greater memory than anything else they did but that doesn't mean it will hold a big value in determining the greatness of that player.

This. And more importantly, it's the Olympics ffs. Someone on MTF had written, "The Olympics transcend tennis". This is what people need to understand. As a tennis title, the Olympics are worth peanuts. What counts is the medal. Wining is all about national pride, not personal glory. Tennis, on the whole, is not. So, once in four years when you get to win for your nation it means a lot to all the players .A singles or doubles medal is worth exactly the same. In no other tennis tournament this can be said.

For argument sake, assume that in 2016 the Olympics is worth 2000 points and gives the same amount of money as wining a GS title. It still won't be close to a slam title. One simple reason. The field. The field of the Olympics if so much weaker than the Slams. Yes, all the top 10 players are there, but, you need to look beyond that. How can you ignore the fact that Devvarman qualified, but Granollers did not(At the time of qualification, the former was outside top 300, and later in top 30).

coluta
08-04-2012, 03:35 PM
I didn't mention fans, someone else did.

You are right, it was someone else. Sorry.

duong
08-04-2012, 09:37 PM
in tennis, they are not important to me :shrug:
I would have preferred my favorite player Federer playing Toronto :shrug:

I can understand giving 1250 points to the winner considering the importance some players give to that, but playing two-setters, it cannot get near to the importance of a slam, and I still consider the Masters Cup formula (top-8 players playing in round-robin) as a great formula I've greatly enjoyed for nearly 30 years (well there was a small period where it was not round-robin : it was not at all as interesting) ... if only all top-players really played it rather than preparing the Aus Open and not caring (here I think of Nadal and Djokovic)

At the moment, it's true, some top-players give importance to the Olympics (for Fed it's because it's nearly the only one he's never won), and some don't give importance to the WTF, also because some top-players now hate indoor tennis, in another time it was different, we will see about the future top-players : I still think a competition with the top-8 players playing in round-robin is a great formula which could be loved by top-players.

The Davis cup also has a great formula and a very long and huge history.

These are the main competitions in tennis to me :shrug:

Besides I still consider that tennis should not be part of the Olympics, the biggest joke being the introduction of the mixed doubles :haha: whereas some traditional olympic competitions have been taken out of the games

Mountaindewslave
08-04-2012, 09:40 PM
Let's be real about something here Olympics are million times more important than regular Masters series and 10 times more important than WTF and it's only getting bigger. One day it will be the most important tennis tournament, bigger than slams.

in reality it's true, most sports the Olympics is as big as it gets, Tennis just hasn't been involved in the Olympics quite long enough yet for the fans to care a lot.

Olympics are as important as slams because of their rarity and because of how important players feel it is to represent and make their countries proud.

in a few decades I think the OP will definitely be correct, it's like stock that has no way to drop but only to rise. just the fact that it occurs so rarely will automatically means its value soars and soars

Only clowns think that Olympic tennis is lacking value and they also happen to be clueless fans who do not understand that tennis is such a young Olympic sport

duong
08-04-2012, 09:42 PM
And obviously The Olympics is the most important prestigious outside of the slams. If it wasn't there's no way all the top players would value it so much and play doubles etc given the inconvenient time it usually comes around.

players also do that because it's important for their reputation in their country, which is important to them, and then also for their business.

HoorayBeer
08-04-2012, 09:44 PM
How many points u get for winning Olympics, how much money?

If someone is a top 10 top 20 guy on the tour they are comfortable rich and should be beyond worrying about ranking. I am pretty sure Robredo would trade his Masters Shield for the kind of adulation Massu's 2004 singles gold will give him in his country for the rest of his life.

duong
08-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Keep believing that - pretty much every tennis pundit will disagree with you. That was a dramatic exciting match with the end always in doubt. Yesterday it was clear Fed was going to win no matter how many times Delpo held serve. It was a serve dominated match. Go back and rewatch Madrid 09 - you'll enjoy some great baseline tennis. :wavey:

you could be a great poster but it seems that you have hated so much some offensive comments that you also get to that offensive-mean way

that's MTF's (GM section) main problem : people who have good intentions in the beginning finish being as stupid as the others, as Nolefan told me she did :sad:

ogbg
08-04-2012, 09:55 PM
It feels like its growing in significance each 4 years but there's no guarantee that trend will continue.

sexybeast
08-04-2012, 09:58 PM
Whoever thinks players play Olympics for the 750 points must be stupid or trolling, Del Potro and Djokovic crying because they lost some hundreds of points? Top players beeing emotional about victory and defeatlike they are playing in slams and ignoring Toronto to win medals in doubles.

The truth is that glory lies in whatever achievment that ranks high up in the list for great players, there in lie the contest for greatness between the very best and there is no doubt that this generation values Olympics very, very high. You cant compare between eras achievment in olympics to those times when it was less valued still there is no doubt today this is up there with WTF and way more important than Davis Cup.

It has also been one hell of a tournament so far, the final will be contested like if it was a slam final.

Boris Franz Ecker
08-04-2012, 10:00 PM
Rio will be much worse than Wimbledon.
That is sure.

and players reaction depends on the player.
looking at the celebration, than daviscup would be by far the most important thing, especially if less sucessfull countries win.
It's the team fealing, a little bit like the Olympics.
But Daviscup is surely not the most important thing.

nastoff
08-04-2012, 10:16 PM
Dementieva won no slam and she will be remembered for her Olympic gold. Murray is slamless at the moment and until he wins a slam his biggest accolade will be the Olympics gold ( if he wins it ) not his numerous masters titles. Therefore the OP is right, it's the most important tournament after the slams and it's also unique for all parties involved... different venues, different atmosphere, different "buzz" and only once every four years. Its the most important event in the world where you get to represent your country foremost and feel pride even by participating. It also carries a weight in history.

Henry Chinaski
08-04-2012, 10:23 PM
tennis is the only sport at the olympics where people complain that a gold medal for the winner isn't enough of a prize.

coluta
08-04-2012, 10:33 PM
What people?

blank_frackis
08-04-2012, 10:44 PM
The entry list for Toronto is proof enough that the Olympics means more than a Masters. I do think this is a special case though because it's at Wimbledon.

samanosuke
08-04-2012, 10:46 PM
I would rather win one slam than being OC 3 times in a row

IOFH
08-05-2012, 12:54 PM
you could be a great poster but it seems that you have hated so much some offensive comments that you also get to that offensive-mean way

that's MTF's (GM section) main problem : people who have good intentions in the beginning finish being as stupid as the others, as Nolefan told me she did :sad:

I doubt Ash86 has ever been a great poster; I've seen him on numerous other sites and it's always the same, he tries to convey himself as a balanced poster but pretty much always fails due to the bitterness and anger he feels towards Federer and his supporters.

Johnny Groove
08-05-2012, 12:57 PM
I doubt Ash86 has ever been a great poster; I've seen him on numerous other sites and it's always the same, he tries to convey himself as a balanced poster but pretty much always fails due to the bitterness and anger he feels towards Federer and his supporters.

Ash86 is female.

leng jai
08-05-2012, 01:04 PM
She hot?

DJ Soup
08-05-2012, 01:07 PM
people will soon forget about the olympics and only care about the slams for 4 more years. kthxbai

IOFH
08-05-2012, 07:47 PM
Ash86 is female.

Sorry, I had the Pokemon trainer in mind.

Aloevera
08-05-2012, 07:57 PM
Very close in terms of importance? It's always equal and you can say even surpassing the slams because all events yield gold medal as the 1st prize. The highest prize in this event.

With 0 ranking points awarded in the past plus 0 prize money doesn't make it less important than GS.

Maybe what you mean is... prestige?

Pirata.
08-05-2012, 08:15 PM
How many of these would actually play if there were no points on offer? That's when you would get a proper indication of who wants to play it. No way points should be awarded for this or DC. These things can't be measured in that way, it's not like the Slams nor will it ever be, it's different and that's good.

Olympics are only prestigious when a big name wins it, you win a medal that's good enough.

Agreed.

branimir_iliev
08-05-2012, 08:23 PM
I don't like to overrate or underrate the Olympics, especially so in tennis. Olympics will always be about what an athlete does for his country. The Olympics are also a highlight for sports that get less recognition/glamor as it is- swimming, weightlifting, running. Great for them. But tennis has its own prestigious, well-recognized tournaments for individual achievements and those are on the regular ATP tour.

At this point I take the Olympics for what it is, a 750 pt event with overarching themes of nationalism and patriotic bravado. But that's about it. The prestige is a different kind of prestige than say winning a masters, wtf or slam. It has its own unique quality as Murray pointed out today. But the comparison between olympics and slams and even wtf is quite simply apples and oranges. It's not 1:1 prestige either. It's like the difference between genres in fiction writing.

Now what Djokovic says I would also take with a grain of salt because Balkanites tend to be very nostalgic/nationalist/patriotic, sometimes crudely so. Besides what do we expect an athlete in that position to say, "No, I hate this gross waste of my time and my country btw is a third world black hole so screw what they expect of me." No of course not, that would be a PR career suicide.

Mjau!
08-05-2012, 10:22 PM
No history - no prestige. :wavey:

Well, less than majors anyway.

coolboarder
08-06-2012, 07:19 PM
The Davis cup also has a great formula and a very long and huge history.

These are the main competitions in tennis to me :shrug:

Besides I still consider that tennis should not be part of the Olympics, the biggest joke being the introduction of the mixed doubles :haha: whereas some traditional olympic competitions have been taken out of the games

When you mentioned Davis Cup, it came to me naturally when I thought of the Olympics when the nation is emphasized rather than an individual name. Plus someone mentioned in the other post, that some player could not do well in one of the Olympics is because it is not their favorite surface and is their worst surface. Olympics comes every 4 years and their opportunity to win is gone just like that.

So that led me to ponder many things how Olympics tennis could become more important and more prestigious. I have seen the Olympics used the tournament bracket format and it works well but it is not a national concept but rather still individualized sport. It does not determine which tennis nation is the best tennis nation in the world.

Olympics tennis should be unique to determine the best overall player that excel the many surfaces rather than a single surface every 4 years. So here is what I propose and I hope that this will be an agreement to determine the best tennis player.

Olympics Tennis should have three surfaces in a single Olympiad year: clay, grass and hard court. Each host should build three main courts but one court has their surface but the stadium can be 8,000 each stadium but with three different surface so we could have 3 courts with 8,000 spectator or build one largest stadium but it does have a "moveable" court where it can get clay court in the stadium and grass court in the stadium with some sort of technology. It may be higher cost to implement the technology so if it is the case then build 3 courts with 8,000 spectator each.

The format would be as similar to Davis Cup or a best of 3 matches tournament. The entries list can hold up to top 16 players in the world. The entry list, the points system count at the end of London to Rio as an example: 4 years of point accumulation leading up to Rio will be even more important to ensure the top 16 and to give the players who is not in top 16 time to catch up. The tournament should last 2 weeks but with short best of 3 for each match.

This will give them the maximum of 12 matches in 16 days with the minimum of 8 matches in 16 days. Here's how it will work in the best of 3 matches. I use latest ATP ranking as of 08-06-12. I will use Federer as number 1 against number 16, Dolgopolov as an exmaple: As #1 ranked, Federer elects to play on grass court on Day 1 of the Olympics agaisnt Dolgopolov. Federer wins the match, 6-4,7-5. On Day 2 of the Olympics, Dolgopolov elects to play on clay. Federer still wins with 7-5,7-6. Federer gets to rest for two days since third match is not necessary and Day 4 is the rest day for all players. On Day 5, Federer plays against #8 Del Potro. Federer elects to play on hard court and wins the match, 7-6,6-7,8-6. On Day 6, Del Potro elects to play on grass but wins the match against Roger, with score of 7-6,7-5. The series is tied 1-1 so the 3rd rubber match on Day 7 to decide who moves on, clay court is required to play to decide since they already played on HC, and grass. So on clay court, Roger defeats Del Potro 6-4,6-4. So on Day 8, all players gets a day off. So semi-finals and the finals can be played on Day 9-11 and 13-16.

This is my thought on how the Olympics tennis can work well with certain surface they must play on for one match in a series against a player. It gives players a chance to pick his favorite surface to play on the Olympics tennis every 4 years rather than once every 12 years or never in his career and average career is up to 30 years old and there's a chance that he will never play the Olympics with his favorite surface. This idea will give the Olympics tennis more prestigious than the Slams because of the unique format. The prize: a gold medal and the name for himself, proving that he can play on all surfaces against the top players in the world.

Since the players misses regular ATP events for the Olympics, it should award more points than the regular ATP events to replace lost points it potentially earns.

Honestly
08-06-2012, 10:23 PM
Let's be real about something here Olympics are million times more important than regular Masters series and 10 times more important than WTF and it's only getting bigger. One day it will be the most important tennis tournament, bigger than slams.

Nice troll job. Are you Massu btw?

green25814
08-06-2012, 11:10 PM
Its not bigger than slams, but it is bigger than everything else. It also depends on the player.

The olympics this year felt on a grandslam level because they were played at Wimbledon, that was the biggest difference.

stewietennis
08-06-2012, 11:38 PM
I think because tennis has only been recently re-instated as a competition sport, it doesn't have history; and the every-four-years format will take a while for that history to be built. It's similar to the Australian Open, in a way, because no one, especially in the 70s, even bothered to attend the AO. It's much more important than a Masters title. I would say it's as important as a World Tour Finals win because of it's rarity (WTF only has 8 players, Olympics only happens every four years).

Julián Santiago
08-07-2012, 02:25 AM
Stupid thread :haha:

evilmindbulgaria
08-07-2012, 03:02 AM
Let's be real about something here Olympics are million times more important than regular Masters series and 10 times more important than WTF and it's only getting bigger. One day it will be the most important tennis tournament, bigger than slams.

I am pretty sure that all Fedtards would have agreed with you hadn't Murray destroyed their idol on Sunday :wavey:

manadrainer
08-07-2012, 06:07 AM
I am pretty sure that all Fedtards would have agreed with you hadn't Murray destroyed their idol on Sunday :wavey:

No. because Fed would have had one gold and six WTFs. ;)

Anyway Fed thinks slams = WTF = OG. He's said it after the finals, he wasn't trying to diminish the importance of the gold medal just because he didn't win it (like all nadaltards do with WTF just because their idol never won it)

chalkdust
08-07-2012, 08:36 AM
[...]
Olympics tennis should be unique to determine the best overall player that excel the many surfaces rather than a single surface every 4 years. So here is what I propose and I hope that this will be an agreement to determine the best tennis player.

Olympics Tennis should have three surfaces in a single Olympiad year: clay, grass and hard court. [...]

The format would be as similar to Davis Cup or a best of 3 matches tournament. The entries list can hold up to top 16 players in the world. The entry list, the points system count at the end of London to Rio as an example: 4 years of point accumulation leading up to Rio will be even more important to ensure the top 16 and to give the players who is not in top 16 time to catch up. The tournament should last 2 weeks but with short best of 3 for each match.

This will give them the maximum of 12 matches in 16 days with the minimum of 8 matches in 16 days. Here's how it will work in the best of 3 matches. I use latest ATP ranking as of 08-06-12. I will use Federer as number 1 against number 16, Dolgopolov as an exmaple: As #1 ranked, Federer elects to play on grass court on Day 1 of the Olympics agaisnt Dolgopolov. Federer wins the match, 6-4,7-5. On Day 2 of the Olympics, Dolgopolov elects to play on clay. Federer still wins with 7-5,7-6. Federer gets to rest for two days since third match is not necessary and Day 4 is the rest day for all players. On Day 5, Federer plays against #8 Del Potro.
[...]

Since the players misses regular ATP events for the Olympics, it should award more points than the regular ATP events to replace lost points it potentially earns.

You have made an effort here, but I cannot agree with your ideas.

For one, I think it is more or less meaningless to have a three match, three surface contest. I understand what you are trying to do, but I don't think you can really say a player is definitely better than another player because he has won on more surfaces. It is just a bit of a confused mess.

Secondly, there is no way that players would tolerate switching surfaces for each and every match. They complain enough about the clay to grass transition between Roland Garros and Wimbledon, so there is no way they could do this.

Thirdly, you have proposed a four-year ranking system - even Uncle Toni would stop short of that.

Where I do agree is that some points need to be awarded for the Olympics to replace the points that players might earn if their schedule were not interrupted by the Olympics, e.g. the problem this year is that it is very difficult to play the Toronto MS if you do well in the Olympics. If it were not for the scheduling thing, I would just award zero points for the Olympics, because some good players from strong countries do not even get a chance to enter the draw.

Looner
08-07-2012, 09:45 AM
Slams>>>WTF>>>Olympics because it's special>Masters

Chair Umpire
08-07-2012, 11:14 AM
3 days and Fedtards are still trying to comfort themselves. :lol:

Pratik
08-07-2012, 11:22 AM
3 days and Fedtards are still trying to comfort themselves. :lol:

3320 days (since Fed won his first slam) and you are still trying to comfort yourself :superlol:

Chair Umpire
08-07-2012, 11:25 AM
No sense. I'm not underrating the value of Grand Slams. :wavey:

erez
08-07-2012, 12:15 PM
i think that the ranking points for the olympics should be the same amount as the tournaments that are played that week on the atp tour. this year it shouldve been 500 like washington.

it's unfair to players who couldve played in the olympics with their ranking but cant because of the rule of maximum 4 players per country. if nadal wasnt injured, 5 players from spain couldnt have played in the OG because of that rule. almost the same number for france as well.

that's why i cant see the ATP increasing the number of points for the OG.

in tearms of significance i agree that its more than a masters 1000 event but definately not as big as a GS or WTF.

fivebargate
08-07-2012, 01:20 PM
tennis is the only sport at the olympics where people complain that a gold medal for the winner isn't enough of a prize.

Yes, quite. Interesting, huh.

I can quite easily see this year being the pinnacle of tennis in the Olympics for a good while. Being at Wimbledon certainly helped add awareness to the event and a splash of legitimacy/prestige. How about when it is in a dusty car park in Rio?

If tennis is going to be a serious Olympic sport, then I feel it has to distance itself for the week from it's professional status. That means that no points shall be awarded. Players shall compete for the worth of an Olympic title only - no tour money, no points....only honour for their country and a spot in the Olympic history books for themselves. It can't just be another stop on the tour. Also, awarding points in a tournament where not all normally elligible players can gain selection for their country is just wrong.

duarte_a
08-07-2012, 04:03 PM
"Olympics are very close to slams importance wise!"

So you're saying not asking. I don't agree. In the sport of tennis the most important tournaments are the Grand slams imo. The olympics are special but are not even close to the importance of slams.

One way we could acess the importance of a tournament is by looking at the players actions. We've seen in this years olympics, 4 years ago, in all olympics that many players have chosen not to play in the olympics. How many players have chosen not to play at a slam?! Recently I can't hink of an example. We know that some players used to skip the Australian Open for example but in recent years every player that has a chance plays at the slams.

In terms of importance and prestige we have slams >>>>>>> olympics >>> masters 1000, even though the masters 1000 give more points.

Bad Religion
08-07-2012, 05:41 PM
How many players have chosen not to play at a slam?! Recently I can't hink of an example. We know that some players used to skip the Australian Open for example but in recent years every player that has a chance plays at the slams.


Before the 32 seeds era, some top spanish players skipped Wimbledon.

Sapeod
08-07-2012, 07:41 PM
It's certainly very important. It's up there with WTF, but not anywhere near slams. Slams are wortth vast amounts of money and 2000 points for a reason.

That said, a gold medal >>>> most other things in tennis.

duarte_a
08-07-2012, 08:53 PM
It's certainly very important. It's up there with WTF, but not anywhere near slams. Slams are wortth vast amounts of money and 2000 points for a reason.

That said, a gold medal >>>> most other things in tennis.

Congrats on Murray's gold medal. :yeah:

Murray was the person I wanted to win gold other than Roger.

Am hoping for a Roger - Murray final at the US Open.

coolboarder
08-08-2012, 02:44 AM
You have made an effort here, but I cannot agree with your ideas.

For one, I think it is more or less meaningless to have a three match, three surface contest. I understand what you are trying to do, but I don't think you can really say a player is definitely better than another player because he has won on more surfaces. It is just a bit of a confused mess.

Secondly, there is no way that players would tolerate switching surfaces for each and every match. They complain enough about the clay to grass transition between Roland Garros and Wimbledon, so there is no way they could do this.

Thirdly, you have proposed a four-year ranking system - even Uncle Toni would stop short of that.

Where I do agree is that some points need to be awarded for the Olympics to replace the points that players might earn if their schedule were not interrupted by the Olympics, e.g. the problem this year is that it is very difficult to play the Toronto MS if you do well in the Olympics. If it were not for the scheduling thing, I would just award zero points for the Olympics, because some good players from strong countries do not even get a chance to enter the draw.

If the idea is shot down and players don't want to play on the multi-surfaces with best of 3 matches in consecutive days then how about dropping the Single/Double Olympics tournament in favor of the Davis Cup type format? Davis Cup format would replace the tournament format and have top 16 tennis nations plays in the Olympics tennis, that way, the lesser players have good chance of getting a gold medal with top players of their own countryman and determine the top tennis nation, rather than top tennis individual player. We already have GS and ATP ranking to determine the top tennis players.

We can use top 16 teams in the world group in Davis Cup. The winners of the 1st round of Davis cup in the Olympic year are automatically qualified for the Olympics. This will get us to 8 nations locked their spot for the Olympics. This leaves us 8 qualification spots available.

The nation who was in world group 3 years ago but failed to get back in World Group playoffs or even world group itself in the Olympic year has a "last chance" to qualify for the Olympics. This nation will have the opportunity to play against "seeded" team, the loser of the first round. If 7 nations in last 3 years was in world group then the top ranked team loser of the first round of Davis Cup is automatic in. If there are more than 9 nations that played in the World Group stage in last 3 years has to play 2 ties round to qualify. This qualification process depends on number of nations that played in the World Group.

After the Olympics is over, the qualification begins in the next Olympic year with same process as Davis Cup. But with one exemption: the loser of the first round of the first year of 4-year period will not be able to take part of qualification process until they make it back in the World Group. You have to earn the Olympics with Davis Cup, this will ensure the top players will take participation in the Davis Cup play rather than skipping the event to rest their bodies.

Personally, the Olympics is all about the nation against the nations, rather than individual against the individual. What do you think?

hadouken!
08-08-2012, 04:41 AM
5th most important just below the slams

masterclass
08-08-2012, 12:37 PM
The importance of any tennis event depends on one's perspective.

If one is talking about a tournament's importance in the ATP rankings/importance view of world tennis events, we see how ATP treats it. The Olympics is in the ATP 500 category, while the World Championship is placed at the top, even though it awards fewer winner points (1500) than the majors (2000).

http://www.menstennisforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=253064&d=1344427360

But if one is the player who has just won the event, then it might just be the biggest achievement in their career.

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181144_10150956095282187_258644061_n.jpg

Respectfully,
masterclass

Ash86
08-11-2012, 11:35 PM
Stakhovsky's view via twitter today - when asked what he'd choose - gold medal or slam?

Gold Medal!!!even if have one and can choose again it will still be Gold Medal #askStako

Interesting view point. Do you think for some tennis players the prestige of winning a medal for their country would outshine an individual slam? Still think slams matter more in tennis but maybe if Stakhovsky won gold he'd be a legend in Ukraine, whilst winning a slam could mean you're an Albert Costa, Johannsen, Gaudio etc. - make the news that week but fade from people's consciousness as they forget what slams really are. A gold medal is universal.

Certainly shows that for a lot of players the idea of winning Gold is up there with the slams and/or surpasses it.

[Interesting twitter by the way - answering lots of questions - he believes in Rafa's injuries and says "if you know Rafa you know how hard it was for him to miss the Olympics"; his favourite match is Safin v Fed Aus 05; thinks courts too slow and maybe balls too - makes the game more attractive but too extreme when you have 6 hour matches; says the mental/confidence issue is the biggest thing when facing one of the top 4... https://twitter.com/Stako_tennis]

Looner
08-11-2012, 11:37 PM
It has been established already that Olympics is well below the WTF. Please deal with it. Stakhovsky is also a major prick and a Dull supporter so his opinion is irrelevant.

Ash86
08-11-2012, 11:43 PM
It has been established already that Olympics is well below the WTF. Please deal with it. Stakhovsky is also a major prick and a Dull supporter so his opinion is irrelevant.

I don't think the Olympics compare to a slam - arguable whether it's now above the WTF given how players seem to cry if they win/lose there - never really see that at WTF anymore! - so it's not something you can "establish". :wavey:

Anyway, not saying I agree with Sergei - just bringing his opinion over. He's actually in the top 100 and probably has a more relevant insight into how players feel than you do.

Looner
08-11-2012, 11:47 PM
I'd argue that 1500>750, even dare say 750=1/2*1500, so you can claim that WTF is twice as important in tennis terms as the Olympics. Which would be right, I suppose. Olympics do carry the sentimental value of winning something for your country, so I guess we can bump them to 800 points.

Fumus
08-12-2012, 12:09 AM
I'd argue that 1500>750, even dare say 750=1/2*1500, so you can claim that WTF is twice as important in tennis terms as the Olympics. Which would be right, I suppose. Olympics do carry the sentimental value of winning something for your country, so I guess we can bump them to 800 points.

WTF is a glorified exhibition run by the atp. It's equivalent in it's meaninglessness to the Olympics.

Here's what posters here need to understand.

Tennis is about the slams.

It's about the SLAMS.

THE SLAMS!!

FFS! Everything else is just a warmup or an exhibition. It's just like that imagine song by John Lennon...imagine if there are no tournements except slams, I wonder if you can?

Seriously.

Professional Tennis greatness = winning slams.

I'm so tired of this forum, the posters and their nonsense. It's all media hype...in 2020 when they look back on this season they will talk about Novak, Rafa, Roger...and whoever wins the open. The Olympics will be a footnote. A FOOTNOTE.

Topspindoctor
08-12-2012, 12:21 AM
It's certainly very important. It's up there with WTF, but not anywhere near slams. Slams are wortth vast amounts of money and 2000 points for a reason.

That said, a gold medal >>>> most other things in tennis.

:worship:

I am suprised you are not making OG worth at least 5 slams, though. After all your boy is a gold medal champ.

ssj100
08-12-2012, 12:45 AM
It's certainly very important. It's up there with WTF, but not anywhere near slams. Slams are wortth vast amounts of money and 2000 points for a reason.

That said, a gold medal >>>> most other things in tennis.

Does that apply to doubles?

AntiTennis
08-12-2012, 02:38 AM
I don't think a Gold Medal is more or less important than Slam, is just different..you can't compare.

fivebargate
08-12-2012, 03:20 AM
Yes. A weakened M1000 event with a 5 setter stuck on at the end - just the same as a slam. Behave!

Granted , if you were going to a win an olympic gold, then Wimbledon is the place to do it. There was definitely a cachet boost to the event this time around because of this....but next time, in a dusty park in Rio...not so much.

So my countryman Murray can bask in the glory of gold for himself and his country...if he is lucky, he can use it to push on his game and results also. It is a great achievement on a personal level. What it isn't, is a tennis major. As far as this summer is concerned for Murray and his legacy, he lost a shilling and found a sixpence.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using VerticalSports.Com App

Houstonko
08-12-2012, 03:32 AM
olympics no prize money and little points. Players are known to not give 100% to this tournament, at least in the mind motivation is not same. Federer is more concerned about no.1 i guess, trying to go 1 step further than djoker.

Sham Kay
08-12-2012, 03:47 AM
The Tennis players are the ones who're playing to gain these achievements. What they say is important, is important.

I'd personally rate it just below WTF. But looking at the players comments, the value of the olympics goes beyond the sport, since it represents a players nation and represents sport as a whole, and not just Tennis like the slams do. Slams are the most precious for personal gain, while the olympics are the most precious for national glory.

rickcastle
08-12-2012, 03:50 AM
Stakhovsky's view via twitter today - when asked what he'd choose - gold medal or slam?



Interesting view point. Do you think for some tennis players the prestige of winning a medal for their country would outshine an individual slam? Still think slams matter more in tennis but maybe if Stakhovsky won gold he'd be a legend in Ukraine, whilst winning a slam could mean you're an Albert Costa, Johannsen, Gaudio etc. - make the news that week but fade from people's consciousness as they forget what slams really are. A gold medal is universal.

Certainly shows that for a lot of players the idea of winning Gold is up there with the slams and/or surpasses it.

[Interesting twitter by the way - answering lots of questions - he believes in Rafa's injuries and says "if you know Rafa you know how hard it was for him to miss the Olympics"; his favourite match is Safin v Fed Aus 05; thinks courts too slow and maybe balls too - makes the game more attractive but too extreme when you have 6 hour matches; says the mental/confidence issue is the biggest thing when facing one of the top 4... https://twitter.com/Stako_tennis]

I'm not surprised. Olympics is more about bringing glory to your country and slams is more about personal glory (and more points and more prize money) - I would be surprised if you asked a player if he straight up said, "I would prefer a slam." The answer I would expect is that "they are of equal importance" or they would "prefer an Olympic gold." If they say they prefer a slam, it would sound like them preferring prize money and personal glory over supporting one's country.

Also, it's easy for Stako to bullshit his way through this when he has no realistic chance of winning either. I think if we ask someone like Roddick if he would prefer a Wimbledon over Olympic Gold, he would say Wimbledon considering how many times he's come close with no dice over there.

Pirata.
08-12-2012, 03:59 AM
Also, it's easy for Stako to bullshit his way through this when he has no realistic chance of winning either. I think if we ask someone like Roddick if he would prefer a Wimbledon over Olympic Gold, he would say Wimbledon considering how many times he's come close with no dice over there.

:lol:

Boris Franz Ecker
08-12-2012, 10:02 AM
Stakhovsky's view via twitter today - when asked what he'd choose - gold medal or slam?

Interesting view point. Do you think for some tennis players the prestige of winning a medal for their country would outshine an individual slam? Still think slams matter more in tennis but maybe if Stakhovsky won gold he'd be a legend in Ukraine,


if he would win wimbledon he would be a legend too.
if he was an australian or french champion perhaps he would not.

duong
08-13-2012, 01:45 PM
What people?

Nadal talked about it, I don't know anybody else.

But he said it in the meaning that it means that sportsmen in other sports don't get what they deserve.

But still strange that he gives so much importance about such a materialistic detail as the "gold medal" being in full gold or only gold-plated :confused:

I had never heard that complaint before, as anyway the "gold medal" value is purely symbolic : I don't think anybody would sell it unless he's a homeless person.