Mens Tennis Forums banner

You can't be the GOAT without Olympic Gold

15K views 235 replies 88 participants last post by  Tennis cognoscenti king 
#1 ·
Olympics is being played with higher pressure and intensity than slams, because you play not only for yourself but for your country as well. And you play that event only once in 4 years, every time in a different city and on different surface.

Since this event is so intense and tricky, peak Federer lost to a mug, Djokovic lost in R1 to Del Potro, and many other favorites in the past failed - they just couldn't handle the challenge, which is higher than winning a slam.

So in order to win this event, you have to be 100% ready both mentally and physically, and you need to be talented enough to quickly adopt to the surface.

So far Nadal has won 1 OG, Murray has 2, and Djokovic and Federer have 0 (Fed's doubles gold doesn't count - if anything it should be counted against him since he was carried to vulturing that silly medal).

So if Federer can compete for 1 more OG, and Nadal and Djokovic for 2 more, who will end up with how many OGs from the big 3 when they all retire? And who will became the real GOAT if you have in mind that the advantage in OGs can more than compensate for the small disadvantage in slams?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
You can't be unbiased with a double account.
 
#4 ·
:haha:

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. The fact is, tennis WASN'T EVEN IN THE OLYMPICS between 1924 and 1988 -- and olympic medals have never been a talking point when talking about the greatest tennis players of all time. In fact nobody used to give a shit about the olympics in the tennis world.

For Fedalovic, not having a gold medal is a small hole in their resumé. Nothing more. It certainly does not exclude anyone from the GOAT discussion.
 
#11 · (Edited)
If one Olympic Gold is decisive regardless of all other achievements it's pretty clear who's the true GOAT:

 
 
#12 ·
I don't personally feel like a gold medal has as much significance as a slam IMO. For starters it is Bo3 matches and that makes upsets more likely and also makes the road to win less physically demanding. It adds a completely different type of pressure that really has nothing to do with tennis in itself, but in trying to win a medal for your country (just look at Djokovic's reaction when he fell short, completely devastated). The other issue I have with it meaning so much is that with it only being every 4 years your level at that point in time will be extremely important (Murray in 2012 and 2016 for instance was playing some of his best tennis going in and he was playing in front of his home crowd in 2012 as well).
 
#14 ·
Can you be GOAT without a YE title?

 
#16 ·
Weird statement. Its a good tournament to win and no doubt players are taking it more seriously now but I wouldn't have thought it was even equal to a slam yet. It might become that way, possibly worth even more than a slam at some point in the future, but it is not there at this stage. Players who won one of the first few olympics since it came back in 1988 have benefited from the increased value of it now. Same as guys like tanner and kriek who won the australian open before everyone was playing it.

The fact that 3 of the 8 winners never won a slam makes a nonsense of the idea that you have to win the olympics to be goat. Nicholas Massu, career high ranking 9 ! Even more damning, 6 of the 16 olympic finalists never even made it to a slam final in their entire careers.
 
#18 ·
Massu is obviously much lesser player than, for example, Federer - under the normal circumstances. But when the pressure is higher than usual, or when the destiny of the whole world is at stake, Massu proved with OG that he might be a better option than Fed. Would you really chose Federer, the choker, to save the world? (What kind of the GOAT is that lol) I know I wouldn't.

Olympics are the ultimate test, especially mental. More than slams. This is why the real GOAT absolutely must have at least 1 OG.
 
#17 ·
The Djoker clearly proves otherwise isn't he, also Olympic tennis I consider as a B level tournament slightly above ATP500 and below ATP1000.
 
#23 ·
Everyone knows that in tennis the silver medal is more prestigious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swissmaestro92
#24 · (Edited)
Olympics is a token event held every four years, for many sports it is their pinnacle, but for tennis it is a nice additional achievement to get alongside ones tennis career- it is not part of the tour. I suppose by your logic Marc Rosset is the real Swiss maestro eh?

I consider Nadal's omission of a WTF far far far more of a blemish on his career than a lack of Olympic gold for Roger and Novak.
 
#29 ·
Not to belittle the Olympics, it's a great event, but in tennis it's not really a big deal. More like an individual Davis Cup kind of thing. Olympic draws can't be compared with those of the most important tennis tournaments (i.e. slams, Finals and Masters), because players from multiple countries are selected.
 
#32 ·
Of course there is some ridiculous undervaluing of the Olympic Gold medal, but in fact if there's any big tournament that I think that it shouldn't be seen too negatively to have it "missing" from your resume, it's the Olympics since it comes along only once every 4 years so there are just much fewer of them to go around, and a lot more depends on luck about what your form and health happens to be like in that particular year. Wining an Olympic Gold enhances your career (in whatever category you're playing - a doubles gold is to a singles gold as Wimbledon doubles is to Wimbledon singles when it comes to juding a player's singles career) more than any tournament other than the slams imo, but it isn't "required" to show a player's ability at different tournaments the same way different slams or titles on differenct surfaces do. Since grand slams and other tournaments occur every year players have plenty of opportunity to prove themselves at them so if a GOAT contender completes his career without winning one of them it tells you something meaningful. The Olympics is great to have but not having it doesn't really tell you as much.
 
#37 · (Edited)
But the fact that it comes every 4 years, together with that that you play not only for yourself but for your country as well, means the higher pressure and intensity. Less opportunities to win it = more weight and prestige.

Sure, luck can have it's role as well, but imagine diminishing titles in other sport's tournaments like Olympics or World Cups because they are only every 4 years.
 
#50 ·
Sure, most would chose Wimbledon. But that doesn't mean that OG isn't harder to win, especially mentally. And because Olympics are such a challenge, it should be a must for the GOAT.

Also, most of the players would chose W over other slams, but that doesn't mean that you can become the GOAT with 20 Ws and 0 other slams, you have to win all of them. Same logic should be applied to OG as well.
 
#56 ·
So a hypothetical player dominates the Tour outrageously for 8 years, winning 25 slams in the process, but misses out on his 2 chances at OG due to injury and, say, a nasty flu. No GOAT?

OG is way too random. ONE week every 208 weeks. There is no way you can judge a player on such a tiny selection. Way too many things can affect your form on one given week. The key to goatness is dominance and consistency.
 
#60 ·
It's not because I said so, and whether there are quotes or not is irrelevant - players go to the Olympics and give 110%. When they win a tough match - they celebrate (look at Murray, Nadal and every mug who gives 110%), when they lose - they are devastated, more than when they lose at slams (look at Novak - cried 2 times). I didn't see the peak Federer's reaction when he lost to a mug, but he surely wanted to win the gold for himself and for his country, especially since Agassi already did it.
 
#95 ·
It's not because I said so, and whether there are quotes or not is irrelevant - players go to the Olympics and give 110%. When they win a tough match - they celebrate (look at Murray, Nadal and every mug who gives 110%), when they lose - they are devastated, more than when they lose at slams (look at Novak - cried 2 times).
You can find players play 110% even at Challengers or ATP250s, and they can be pretty devastated when they lose, look no further than PCB's reaction few days ago. Basically you are seeing what you want to see.
 
#62 ·
There is nothing inherently harder about winning an Olympic than a Masters 1000 title. Olympics are not played on another surface, they are best of 3 etc. And like many pointed out they are only once every four years making winning it vs. not winning a poor representation of consistency. I do value it higher than a Masters 1000 title but not winning one isn't a big hole in anyone's GOAT resume like never winning an ATP Finals or Paris Masters (which are on indoor HC) or not winning the French Open. At least IMO...
 
#63 ·
There is nothing inherently harder about winning an Olympic than a Masters 1000 title. Olympics are not played on another surface, they are best of 3 etc. And like many pointed out they are only once every four years making winning it vs. not winning a poor representation of consistency. I do value it higher than a Masters 1000 title but not winning one isn't a big hole in anyone's GOAT resume like never winning an ATP Finals or Paris Masters (which are on indoor HC) or not winning the French Open. At least IMO...
except the olympics final is best of 5
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top