Yes, most definitely.

 

Winning the OG alone is no way as big as a slam, but putting Novak's OG into the context (winning at 37 yo, missing puzzle of his career, his final opponent), it's very big.

 

OG gold is more important to Djoko on a personal level, but from a season perspective, Carlos' Channel Slam is more important by far.

He did this at age 21.

Borg and Nadal did it at 22.

At the moment, Sinner is just a new number 1 and winner of his 1st slam this year, which is already good, but Carlos has already preceded him here in 2022.

 

Carlos' Channel Slam is more important by far.

He did this at age 21.

Borg and Nadal did it at 22.

I had no clue about it, so no -- that is not more important. It's a very niche piece of trivia.

 

Bigger than Channel Slam?

mkay.

 

Bigger than Channel Slam?

mkay.

If you consider the emotions, the story and the final played, easily.

This is a matter of perspective for sure.

 

For the context of Djokovic's whole career then sure but I do also agree Alcaraz' Channel Slam has a similar notable weight to it especially after some issues before he won RG.

 

Just to clarify
The difficulty of channel slam is caused by Nadal
Without his attendance,it's not too difficult IMHO
For example we all know Federer is the No.2 clay & Top grass specialist before 2012
and Djokovic succeed after

Alcaraz or random ATG wins that is less meaning without competent Nadal

 

Just to clarify
The difficulty of channel slam is caused by Nadal
Without his attendance,it's not too difficult IMHO

Without a doubt, Nadal was the difficulty to overcome at RG since 2005....but that's not what made Channel Slam easier before...
The last one dated from ...1980 (the 3rd and last in a row by Borg).

So we had to wait... 28 years with Nadal to see him achieve it again in 2008, then Maestro the following year in 2009.
But the fact is that these 2 players found themselves in the 2 finals since... 2006.

What made RG/Wimb difficult was the proximity, 2 weeks (now 3 weeks) between the end of RG and the start of Wimbledon, and of course, the radical change imposed by the transition from clay to grass especially at the 'time (less now).

The AO-RG “double” is less significant, for several reasons.

The first is that AO has long been ignored by top players.
The 2nd is that the date of AO has varied since the beginning of OE, first in January until 1977.
Then in November from 1977 to 1985 (not played in 1986).
And again in January since 1987.
Then, the transition from grass in 1987 to HC 1988.
Finally from this moment, 4 months between AO and RG makes any relative difficulty compared to the current 3 weeks between RG/Wimb.

Note that in 1983, Wilander lost the RG final against Noah...and won AO in November against Lendl.
If he had won both, he would not have achieved a "thing" called AO/RG by force of circumstances, because that year, the eye of observers was more attracted by the prospect of a double. .. McEnroe on grass... Wimbledon/AO.

In this context, from 1988 players adapting easily to HC and clay, had options to win AO and RG the same year.

And in fact, this was the case with Wilander in 1988 from the first opportunity... to make AO/RG, then later, with Courier in 1992.

Even without realizing it, it would also have been possible for Lendl certainly, with timing better suited to his peak and probably an AO earlier on HC.

Also possible for Agassi but he was much less consistent than Lendl.

So in fact, the Channel slam is much more impactful in the historical field.

Concerning US Open it is yet another perspective, partly also linked to the change of surface (grass until 1974, US clay in 75-76-77, then HC since 1978)
This would require further development.


But in all cases, it is AO who is least suited to interpreting this kind of double.



Sorry for the length of the post, but the perspective requires more lines than a simple AO/RG or RG/Wimb read on wiki and compare apples and coconuts.

 

Yeah. But we might think otherwise in the future if the following happens...

1. Djokovic does something crazy like winning 2025 Wimbledon against Alcaraz and retiring on the spot, making it his last big title instead of this Olympics win.

2. Sinner ends up winning 30 slams and his first title is seen as where it all began for him.

 

No. The Olympics is a glorified exhibition, nothing more. It has zero significance in tennis - no points, no prize $, 64 player draw, Bo3, singles gold counts the same as a dbls/mixed dbls gold, weird eligibility rule resulting in players ranked outside 200 playing in main draw, etc. etc. Its significance is only to the players who won it, it is not important at all to tennis.

I was happy for Novak when he won this, not because it is important to tennis, but because it's what he really wants to "complete his collection". But enough is enough. I'm getting really sick of Djokotards starting thread after thread about this stupid medal. The Olympic gold does not even come close to a slam, much less winning a channel slam like Alcaraz just did. It's not even as meaningful as an ATP final, or a Master's 1000. It is just a weird, obscure title that has nothing to do with the actual sport of tennis. The more players & fans talk up the importance of the Olympic gold, the more they diminish the importance of slams, ATP finals, master's and ranking points, and the more damage they do to the sport. Enough!

 

Well the Olympics is not the most prestigious tennis tournament and an unusual qualification process, but in the context of Nole’s career it is.
99 career titles and a Career Super Slam - Career Golden Slam plus YECs.
He’s only the 2nd player to achieve this feat after Andre Agassi.

 

Just to clarify
The difficulty of channel slam is caused by Nadal
Without his attendance,it's not too difficult IMHO
For example we all know Federer is the No.2 clay & Top grass specialist before 2012
and Djokovic succeed after

Alcaraz or random ATG wins that is less meaning without competent Nadal

least frequently combination in tennis is AO-RG not RG-W. i think that it is because that it is still 2 different surfaces but much longer time in between

Well the Olympics is not the most prestigious tennis tournament and an unusual qualification process, but in the context of Nole’s career it is.
99 career titles and a Career Super Slam - Career Golden Slam plus YECs.
He’s only the 2nd player to achieve this feat after Andre Agassi.

the least frequently slam combination is AO-RG not W-RG. i think that it is because that it is still 2 different surfaces but with much longer time on between to keep a form.

AO-RG OE	W-RG OE
laver 69 - 1	laver 69 - 1
willander 85 - 2	borg 78 - 2
courier 92 - 3	borg 79
nole 16 - 4	borg 80
nole 21	rafa 08 - 3
rafa 22* - 5*	fed 09 - 4
nole 23	rafa 10
	nole 21 - 5
	raz 24 - 6
5* players and 7 times	6 players and 9 times

 

least frequently combination in tennis is AO-RG not RG-W. i think that it is because that it is still 2 different surfaces but much longer time in between


the least frequently slam combination is AO-RG not W-RG. i think that it is because that it is still 2 different surfaces but with much longer time on between to keep a form.

AO-RG OE	W-RG OE
laver 69 - 1	laver 69 - 1
willander 85 - 2	borg 78 - 2
courier 92 - 3	borg 79
nole 16 - 4	borg 80
nole 21	rafa 08 - 3
rafa 22* - 5*	fed 09 - 4
nole 23	rafa 10
	nole 21 - 5
	raz 24 - 6
5* players and 7 times	6 players and 9 times

No, mate. It's because AO was not so well played in the 80s. As you can see, both have the same frequency after 1990.

 

Djokovic winning the Olympics is the highpoint of this year and nothing will top it. He made history. Doing something no tennis player has ever done. (Don't bring WTA in here) And he did it by beating his greatest current rival. I'm not a fan of Novak but I'm glad I saw another moment of tennis history in my lifetime. And I'm happy for him as a person as well. After the tears finally the joy. That's what life is all about. No matter if you are an athlete or not.

 

It got the most media attention that's for sure

 

For me, definitely. But hold your horses, Montreal is shaping up to exude epicness with that packed draw

 

Finally, I put this post back on this thread, it is better suited.
This also looks at the perception of the value of OGs over time.. when they are won, who wins them.. and who benefits from retroactive added value or not..
This has been discussed several times... in various ways, but this is a complementary analysis on this subject.


OG has mostly had a positive retroactive effect for Agassi and OG 1996, since Nadal's victory in 2008.

But it didn't change much for the other winners, Mecir 88, Rosset 92, Kafel 00 or Massu 04.

In other words, this exclusively benefits an integrated player like ATG, but has little effect for others gold winner.

Murray integrated into this big 4 period (2008-2024) also benefits from this effect, accentuated by his double 2012-2016, the first at Wimbledon also has a large impact, but if Zverev does not win at least one GS, I doubt that he will example, maintains an equivalent notoriety..

I say at least one slam.. and I'm being generous, because Kafel won 2 slams.. RG 96 and AO 99, and even if OG have always had a significant impact on Russian sporting culture, it has made much less of an impact in tennis, less than Kuerten in 2000, for example... winner of RG, winner of WTF and YE1.. the same year that Kafel won OG in Sydney.

Obviously this is 24 years old, so it's difficult for younger people to analyze what it was like in real time, outside of their wiki table.


I cite this example, because I think that Kafel has had a hard time being a little forgotten like OG gold, unlike Agassi and not having been "enhanced" like Agassi by the OG effect produced by big4 since 2008.

And he has certainly also experienced very badly that for all these years, Djokofam has denigrated OG as worthless... which can explain his rather mocking tweets since Sunday on Djokofans... now
the great accomplishment

For those who missed Kafel's tweet during the finale, here it is..



and he did it again with the same sarcasm, afterwards..

Kafelnikov: “Olympic gold is as important as a Grand Slam title”

It cannot be overstated how important the match on Sunday was for Djokovic, Kafelnikov said.

“I’ve said it before – Olympic gold is as important as a Grand Slam title. I tweeted the day before the match that this final was the most important match of Novak Djokovic’s career. I was absolutely sure about it. If Novak had lost on Sunday, he would have regretted it all his life. He won and proved my comments true afterwards. To be honest, it’s so funny seeing Novak’s fans on social media now – before, they were saying the Olympics were not important, but now they find it important, saying that it was necessary for him to win it.”

 

In other words, this exclusively benefits an integrated player like ATG, but has little effect for others gold winner.

Murray integrated into this big 4 period (2008-2024) also benefits from this effect, accentuated by his double 2012-2016, the first at Wimbledon also has a large impact, but if Zverev does not win at least one GS, I doubt that he will example, maintains an equivalent notoriety..

I would argue Murray's OGs are mostly overlooked and not talked about. Many are saying Alcaraz has already surpassed him with 4 slams even though Murray has the 2 golds. Historically Murray's gold's have been more an argument for Nadal fans than anything. Most of the time before Nadal, randoms won it. To have Murray win it and not say a Tsonga in 12 and a Nishikori in 16 was a much better leg to stand on as to how hard it is to win recently.

Clearly the top players in the sport are prioritizing it as a tournament now. The same as they are slams and WTFs. I think the days of randoms winning it are less likely going forward. But it is a masters title level for sure. Its just you won't have a Hurkaz/Careno Busta level player win it because their masters wins were due to severely poor draws. But most masters during the year will have a similar or better field than the olympics.

 

In terms of "moving the needle", the OG seems to have done more for Djokovic than say winning AO24 would have. He rectified years of turmoil for himself and the haters lost one of their annoying talking points. The Aussie open is worth way more but when you have 24 slams and are only missing the OG, it won't move the needle as much.

I think the reaction on this board as well as the media seems to agree with that.

But we are also prisoners of the moment. A decade from now, we will see this year as the Carlos FO+W (at least) year. The OG just doesn't have any real prestige beyond that to matter. So to answer the question, yes for now. But no for long term.

 

the most important moments for last 14 seasons:

24: GOAT completing everything at OG
23. GAOT does solo slam lead and 3rd CGS at RG
22: GOAT expelled from AO
21: GOAT made 2nd CGS beating RG god on his way, the new GOAT is born
20: W canceled
19: GOAT in the making met rafa for last time at slams out of clay
18: GOAT in the making wins at W SF, beginning of nole era 2
17: back of old GOAT in absence of GOAT in the making
16: nole-slam at RG becoming the GOAT in the making
15: GOAT season
14: W F
13: RG SF
12: AO F
11: nole streak, the future GOAT is born, beginning of nole era 1

 

20: W canceled

I can think of another one for 2020...

 

I stopped caring about "Channel slams" after they slowed the grass down to nothing and sodded it to the moon in 2002. Grass is basically green clay now. . Borg has a real channel slam.. These other guys nope.. Djoker's Olympic gold I would say yes its the most important because he now has the complete resume with everything won

 

If it's just green clay than why has Nadal been WAY less successful there than RG? Yes it is much slower than it was back in the day, but there is more to a grass court than just speed (it is still significantly faster than clay BTW), like bounce height and footing. There is a reason that guys with big serves are still more successful on WB grass than clay..

 

This is getting out of hand really. A mickey mouse tournament in BO3 where some of the best players chose not to participate in, de Minaur, Rune, Sinner (I know he had a fever but he would most definitely participated if it was a GS) and the russian players were not welcomed is compared to a 21 year old winning the channel slam. There were 63 other players in the field and all of them would take a slam over a gold medal any given day. That tells you alot about it really

 

100% truth

 

Yes without doubt, this Gold medal is the crown jewel in Djokovic's crown.

 

Maybe... All the slam wins were important but Djokovic finally winning every big title that is possible to win is a milestone, an historic moment never seen before in our sport. So, in my opinion: yes, it is.

 

He wasn’t really doing much in 2012-2021. He was immature. Either injured or so ignorant and not resting. Then he said he had to sleep more to improve his ability to compete.

 

Nah, it's big for us Novak fans but, objectively, Jannik winning his first slam and ascending to #1 and Carlos winning two slams are much bigger stories

 

Depends on your perspective. But I'd say yes. To Djokovic' career, it is the icing on the cake, so yes. If we're talking about the impact on the sporting world in general and the buzz it has generated in the media then also most definitely yes. If we're talking about the impact on the traditional relative value of tennis tournaments and the difficulty it traditionally has, than Alcaraz' Wimbledon title (thereby achieving the Channel Slam and a first successful GS title defence at 21 years young) is definitely bigger. But then, this relative value also tends towards yes because there's this context: this big title just so happens to be the only missing jewel on Novak's heavily loaded career crown, and he attained it in the best possible way - by defeating the same Alcaraz in one of the best matches of the 20s, in which he was not the favourite anymore to win by any means.

 

Yes, DEFINITELY! Even in my small country, before Olympic event, still has a lot of biased articles on NOVAK DJOKOVIC. And outside sport news, other papers rarely talk about tennis or Big3
But after NOVAK WINNING 🥇, every media (not only in sport field) channels, postcards, forum talk about him, praise him… how GREAT he is. Every one admit/ acknowledge NOVAK GOAT STATUS, no more arguments. 🤗💪🐐

 

lol no, rg-wimbly double is

 

We are talking about one event here. So no, RG-W double doesn't count.

 

Novak haters were annoying as mosquitoes, now they are harmless as fruit flies.