Mens Tennis Forums banner

Which is worth more in Olympics Tennis? A Singles Gold Medal or a Doubles Gold Medal?


  • Total voters
    34
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,781 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)













?,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,922 Posts
Singles gold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,781 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
@Time Violation @Arsenalex3rd poll option should read: "Gold is Gold. Equal value for the player's country."

Thank you!

Respectfully,
masterclass
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,632 Posts
That's an interesting question, actually. Obviously every successful singles player wants to win a singles Olympics gold. At the same time the whole Olympic spirit evolves around teams. The ability to share this triumphant experience with a partner, let alone if you have a strong bond, is really special. For instance, I can see Murray trade one of his singles for a doubles with his brother and I don't necessarily see Fed rush to trade his doubles for a singles. He probably still would, but I think it's not as clear cut as MTF believes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,632 Posts
What would Usain Bolt value more? His 100m and 200m gold medals, or his gold medals won as part of the 4x100 relay?
Comparing apples and oranges. Olympic gold is to athletics what grands slams are to tennis. Nobody is asking whether a single player prefer a singles GS title or a doubles.
But if you ask a luger, or a diver, or a sync swimmer etc if they prefer WC gold medal in singles or in doubles with their best friend/brother/sister and so on, the singles option will most likely get less than 100% support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
Comparing apples and oranges. Olympic gold is to athletics what grands slams are to tennis. Nobody is asking whether a single player prefer a singles GS title or a doubles.
But if you ask a luger, or a diver, or a sync swimmer etc if they prefer WC gold medal in singles or in doubles with their best friend/brother/sister and so on, the singles option will most likely get less than 100% support.

So? That GS are worth more than Olympics is not in doubt, this is about singles vs doubles, I don't know how the value of the title is of much relevance here. A tennis player can prefer to win with their close friend/brother, etc. in slams and in Olympics or alone in both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,632 Posts
So? That GS are worth more than Olympics is not in doubt, this is about singles vs doubles, I don't know how the value of the title is of much relevance here. A tennis player can prefer to win with their close friend/brother, etc. in slams and in Olympics or alone in both.
Value is also a relative term. You ask multiple players and you will receive a range of answers, because different events have different meaning to different people. Olympics is a special event by its definition and its value varies from player to player greatly. Some appreciate the team spirit behind the Olympic movement, the opportunity to represent their county and so on, others treat it just as another "big" tournament in their career. To some achievements matter and the value with each additional title diminishes, others approach every contest as it was the first in their life or actually contest it for the first time.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Kyrgios and Sock would prefer playing and winning doubles in the Olympics (let alone in LC - if you say the value doesn't matter). I am also pretty sure not even Sock would prefer doubles GS over a singles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,922 Posts
I just can't see that for tennis players who don't specify in doubles the single gold metal would not mean more to them. Sure they would be happy to win a doubles for their country, it being the Olympics. But they're individualistic sportsmen their whole career. So getting that fulfillment of getting gold for your country must mean way more by doing it through a singles gold metal. It caters to the ego more also having done this for your country. I'm convinced that Federer deep down would prefer a singles gold metal over the doubles one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,632 Posts
Not really! It is comparing individual gold with a gold won as part of a team,
Of course, why would the context matter. Life is just a block puzzle. There's perfect fit for every piece. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
As an olympic result, they are pretty much equal I'd say.

As a tennis player's result/legay, for most a singles medal is worth a bit more than doubles.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
At the Olympics, each one is another gold medal to a country's haul and to an individual's tally of gold medals. So in that sense and within Olympics tennis they are equal. But, even within the Olympics where a gold is a gold and there are hundreds of events, there are certain events that are seen as the more notable ones of the competition. I would say that in the Olympics Tennis event, singles is considered as the more significant event rather than doubles or mixed doubles. For example, in 2012 Andy Murray was playing for singles gold and mixed doubles gold on the same day, possibly winning 2 gold medals for Great Britain. In the end he won one gold medal and one silver. As far as Great Britain's medal haul goes, one gold and one silver is the same whether he won mixed doubles or singles, but there is no question that winning the singles was the far better result if he could only win one. And that's no matter how much enjoyment Andy would get for winning mixed doubles as part of a team. In my view, the gap between men's doubles and mixed doubles is much smaller than the gap between men's singes and men's doubles.

As for which is worth more overall, well, value is subjective so maybe an individual might value something more for any reason, but it's basically no different than the question of which is worth more, success at the top of men's singles or success at the top of men's doubles. Individuals can have their opinions, but when it comes to objective measures it's hard to make a case that doubles success is worth more than singles. The singles has the more developed and competitive field since it's where the biggest money is, and the biggest money is there because it's more popular and percieved as more prestigious. Singles prize money of course outstrips doubles (though Olympics doesn't have prize money), but endorsements and fees also are far more lucrative for being at the top of the singles game. Which do you think would command a bigger potential increase in new sponsorships, performance bonuses, or bigger appearance fees; winning singles gold or doubles gold? Again, people might have different opinions or priorities when it comes to their career, but in almost any objective measure I can think of, success in singles is "worth more" than success in doubles. Winning doubles gold is to winning singles gold as winning Wimbledon doubles is to winning Wimbledon singles, with maybe a slight bit of extra appeal thanks to the "a gold is a gold" factor of the Olympics competition as described above.

When it comes to which is worth more when discussing the careers of primarily singles players on a forum that discusses men's singles tennis (since this is not the doubles section), then of course the singles result is far and away more important and relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,880 Posts
It depends on whose perspective you are looking from - player, fan or the general public. I think that the vast majority of people in this world would say they are the same.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top