Originally Posted by Chrillz
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.
What is this shit? You can't logically defend your previous statement so stop trying to. Olympics is not the focus or goal in tennis and has never been. Just because you think the olympic games should be worth more than slams because it's not played as often, doesn't make it so.
At this time, saying shit like "Olympics > Grand Slams > WTF > Masters 1000" is just retarded. And to begin with you only say that because Nadal has won the olympics. In reality though an olympic gold is worth probably less than a WTF title.