Is An Olympic Gold Medal The Holy Grail Of Achievement In Tennis

Is an Olympic gold medal the ultimate prize in tennis. The chance to win it only comes around every four years. Unlike other competitions the players compete for their country alongside athletes from many other sports. They get the chance to be a part of a team and the medal is seen as a prize for their country and not just themselves.

Or is the Olympics a pleasant sideshow that tennis players can indulge in knowing that they get the chance to win one of the ultimate and historic prizes in tennis 4 times a year.

Nadal has an Olympic gold medal in singles. Federer does not. If Federer doesn't win Olympic gold this year it will be something missing from his achievements. Would this affect how you view this achievement

I think you will find the Oy limpics is behind "The Beach Tennis Championships" in Newquay, at least as viewed in them parts:
http://www.lta.org.uk/in-your-area/Cornwall/news/June-2012/Beach-Tennis-hits-Newquay/

It's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, the value is hyped.

750 ranking points is close to the right reflection though I'd give it 1,250 myself, put it just above a Masters for the rarity value.

I'd stick with 750 points - below a Masters. In fact, I'd take Lawn Tennis out of the Olympics altogether and put Real Tennis in there. The Olympic 100m final is the most important 100m event in four years. The Olympic tennis final isn't even in the top 4 of the year - at best the 17th most important event in four years.
If rarity value came into it would a Toronto Masters (every 2 years) be worth more than, say, a Paris Masters?

It's between a regular tour event and a slam, it would finish off the career of Federer if he won it. But it won't really hurt him if he doesn't.

Just because Nads can't play it!

Oh wait, now that nads isn't playing not only will the Olympic Gold medal be the 17th best thing in 4 years but it will also be asterisked!

I wonder why any of the players will bother showing up now!

What's a 'writer' on 606v2?

Agassi's Olympic Gold Medal triumph meant so much to him that he forgot to mention it in his autobiography. I may be wrong, but I don't think he wrote about it at all.

BB a writer writes articles for publication on the board - https://www.606v2.com/f125-the-v2-journal-writers-club

A slam is the ultimate prize, obviously. But the Olympics will be huge for the players because they are representing their country.

I would say its the 5th biggest title a tennis player can win. I don't think it's always been that important, but it is now.

Super D Boon wrote:Just because Nads can't play it!

Oh wait, now that nads isn't playing not only will the Olympic Gold medal be the 17th best thing in 4 years but it will also be asterisked!

I wonder why any of the players will bother showing up now!

So is your answer yes or no?

Well Julius, for Agassi to omit to even make mention of his Gold Medal ("oops ...... I knew there was something else" he was reported to have said to his publisher just as the Autobiog came hot off the press ....) is one thing.

But it's surely inexcusable that the International Olympic Committee somehow forgot to include tennis in the summer schedule between 1924 and 1988. I can only imagine it somehow slipped their mind for sixty odd years ; these things happen even in the best-run organizations.

I have it on good authority that Laver and Borg have lost countless nights of sleep just thinking about what might have been. To this very day they've never stopped talking about the gaping hole in their career CV's .......

I think, in terms of tennis, a Major is bigger than an Olympic medal but in sport in general, an Olympic Gold Medal is pretty much the biggest thing.

It may not be as big as slams HE, but it's still huge.

It's a big blow for the Olympics and Rafa, despite your efforts to convince people (or yourself) otherwise.

Depends on how the player values it.

Although we seem to think our opinion is important on these things, it's really not. A tennis player could feel like an Olympic gold was just another prize for winning event, or they could feel like it was their greatest achievement in the sport.

If you're incredibly proud of winning an Olympic gold and believe it's your greatest moment, are you wrong because people on a forum didn't agree?

Danny_1982 wrote:It may not be as big as slams HE, but it's still huge.

It's a big blow for the Olympics and Rafa, despite your efforts to convince people (or yourself) otherwise.

Big blow for the Olympics?

I doubt it. Usain Bolts fitness matters about 1000 times Rafas presence.

As posted on another thread on 606v2...

In an interview with Reuters, the 25-year-old said that for him personally the Olympics ranked above the four grand slams in prestige.
"The Olympic Games is very special for many reasons and in my opinion the biggest one because you are representing your country," Nadal said as he prepares for the Madrid Masters event starting next week. "You have the feeling that you are with all the Spanish sportsmen representing our country," added the Mallorcan, who beat Chile's Fernando Gonzalez to win the gold in 2008.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/tennis/olympic-gold-the-pinnacle-of-the-sport-rafael-nadal.html

Will a certain Rafael Nadal please stand up and cast his vote on this poll?

bogbrush wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:It may not be as big as slams HE, but it's still huge.

It's a big blow for the Olympics and Rafa, despite your efforts to convince people (or yourself) otherwise.

Big blow for the Olympics?

I doubt it. Usain Bolts fitness matters about 1000 times Rafas presence.

Big blow for the Olympic tennis is what I was alluding to.

laverfan wrote:As posted on another thread on 606v2...

In an interview with Reuters, the 25-year-old said that for him personally the Olympics ranked above the four grand slams in prestige.
"The Olympic Games is very special for many reasons and in my opinion the biggest one because you are representing your country," Nadal said as he prepares for the Madrid Masters event starting next week. "You have the feeling that you are with all the Spanish sportsmen representing our country," added the Mallorcan, who beat Chile's Fernando Gonzalez to win the gold in 2008.

http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/tennis/olympic-gold-the-pinnacle-of-the-sport-rafael-nadal.html

Will a certain Rafael Nadal please stand up and cast his vote on this poll?

If a certain Rafael Nadal is around... Dont stand up sit down and rest your knees. I'm sure your disappointed about the flag, the opening ceremony and staying in the Olympic village but it's not to be. Don't vote in this poll take comfort in the results. An overwhelming majority of 606v2 posters (14 votes to 1 at the present time) think that an Olympic gold medal is not the ultimate achievement in tennis. So get well for the US open in a few weeks time. Oh and if your short of something to do and are still feeling a little sad why not get out the Olympic Gold medal you already have and give it a quick polish. I'm sure it will make you feel a lot better...

Why, if the gold medal means so little to him would he bother polishing it then? Also why would he bother saying how gutted he is not being able to take part? Sorry Hawkeye he is gutted and I commiserate with him but does it dilute the contest? No not at all. It is on a surface that, going by recent form, he wouldn't even have been first, second or maybe even third favourite for the title. After all one of the favourites for the long jump has pulled out through injury but that event will be won and deservedly so by the new Olympic champion as will the case in the tennis. Accept that and move on.

OK Nadal withdraws from a sporting event but as they say... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRE0slFf4Zg

Exactly lydian. No man is bigger than the event itself.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Why, if the gold medal means so little to him would he bother polishing it then? Also why would he bother saying how gutted he is not being able to take part? Sorry Hawkeye he is gutted and I commiserate with him but does it dilute the contest? No not at all. It is on a surface that, going by recent form, he wouldn't even have been first, second or maybe even third favourite for the title. After all one of the favourites for the long jump has pulled out through injury but that event will be won and deservedly so by the new Olympic champion as will the case in the tennis. Accept that and move on.

Very good analysis CC

My personal opinion of tennis at the Olympics per se has been clear, in as much as I rate it well below any of the Slams, below a Masters title too and perhaps closer to an ATP500. If it were my choice (I somehow doubt the IOC will be calling me for advice) I wouldn't even have it in the Olympics.

However things are as they are, the issue of national pride is a significant one, and in a way can be separated from any issues surrounding the perceived quality/standard of the tennis. Once the event gets underway the absence of any one player can never denigrate the achievements of others. In the other related thread "Not Good News for Olympics" laverfan's post (9.43pm) has set out with admirable clarity - using fact rather than emotion - just why hawkeye has got things so very wrong & muddled here ......

I've read Agassi's auto-biography and I'm sure he mentions that the Olympic's gold medal meant a lot to him, coming @ a difficult time when he'd lost very early at both RG & Wimbledon and been slamless for a year and a half. Of course the personal circumstances contributed in its value to him, but he did value it, otherwise there would be no mention of it.

HE, no one would argue that the gold medal @ the Olympics is worth more than a slam but who was suggesting that? That doesn't mean it's valueless, as it seems to come across in your wording of the options 'ultimate prize'. Instead of saying that, perhaps saying, is the Olympic's gold an important prize and you may get a very different answer. The way you've worded the question is rather biased.

luciusmann wrote:I've read Agassi's auto-biography and I'm sure he mentions that the Olympic's gold medal meant a lot to him, coming @ a difficult time when he'd lost very early at both RG & Wimbledon and been slamless for a year and a half. Of course the personal circumstances contributed in its value to him, but he did value it, otherwise there would be no mention of it.

From Agassi's biography...

I am going to hustle for every ball, I am going to make this guy run, and if he thinks he's taking this medal back to Spain, he's got another thin[g/k] coming...
...
It's one of the rare times, Gil [Reyes] says, that he sees no fear in my eyes as I walk into the court.

From the opening serve, I am pounding Bruguera, moving him from corner to corner, making him cover a parcel of real estate the size of Barcelona. Every point is blow to his midsection. In the middle of the second set we have a titanic rally. He wins the point to get back to deuce. He takes so much time getting ready for the next point that I could argue with the umpire. By rights I should argue, and Bruguera should get a warning. Instead I use the moment to wander over to the ball boy, grab a towel, whisper to Gil. How is our friend looking over there?

This is not a player fighting over a trinket, is it?

luciusmann wrote:HE, no one would argue that the gold medal @ the Olympics is worth more than a slam but who was suggesting that? That doesn't mean it's valueless, as it seems to come across in your wording of the options 'ultimate prize'. Instead of saying that, perhaps saying, is the Olympic's gold an important prize and you may get a very different answer. The way you've worded the question is rather biased.

It is an important occasion. Just ask Federer who won the doubles gold. He has played in three Olympics, getting ready for his fourth.

BTW, can anyone name another athlete who has four consecutive appearances at the Olympics, a span of 16 years?

laverfan wrote:
BTW, can anyone name another athlete who has four consecutive appearances at the Olympics, a span of 16 years?

Sir Steve? (I trust you mean athletes in general and not just tennis players)

hawkeye wrote:An overwhelming majority of 606v2 posters (14 votes to 1 at the present time) think that an Olympic gold medal is not the ultimate achievement in tennis.

I would highly recommend to the said 14, pick up a racquet, take a few balls, stand on Wimbledon CC and play a couple of games of Tennis and imagine 15K+ eyes staring at you to start a point, a myriad, on TVs around the globe, gnashing their teeth at you when the 16:9 window shows a double fault in slow motion.

To me, every single match at pro-level can be the foundation of a multi-slam winner. Just ask the 2000 Tennis Silver-medallist who lost to Monaco at Hamburg a few minutes ago.

The Special Juan wrote:

laverfan wrote:
BTW, can anyone name another athlete who has four consecutive appearances at the Olympics, a span of 16 years?

Sir Steve? (I trust you mean athletes in general and not just tennis players)

Sir Steve Redgrave is one of them.

Excellent.

Here is a list (which needs some updating...) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athletes_with_the_most_appearances_at_Olympic_Games

Bellucci beats Tipsarevic and wins Gstaad tournament

Start of Golden career.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Bellucci beats Tipsarevic and wins Gstaad tournament

Start of Golden career.

Brilliant - didn't know who to cheer for between Dimitrov and Belluci, but so glad the winner of that semi triumphed in the end

laverfan wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I've read Agassi's auto-biography and I'm sure he mentions that the Olympic's gold medal meant a lot to him, coming @ a difficult time when he'd lost very early at both RG & Wimbledon and been slamless for a year and a half. Of course the personal circumstances contributed in its value to him, but he did value it, otherwise there would be no mention of it.

From Agassi's biography...

I am going to hustle for every ball, I am going to make this guy run, and if he thinks he's taking this medal back to Spain, he's got another thin[g/k] coming...
...
It's one of the rare times, Gil [Reyes] says, that he sees no fear in my eyes as I walk into the court.

From the opening serve, I am pounding Bruguera, moving him from corner to corner, making him cover a parcel of real estate the size of Barcelona. Every point is blow to his midsection. In the middle of the second set we have a titanic rally. He wins the point to get back to deuce. He takes so much time getting ready for the next point that I could argue with the umpire. By rights I should argue, and Bruguera should get a warning. Instead I use the moment to wander over to the ball boy, grab a towel, whisper to Gil. How is our friend looking over there?

This is not a player fighting over a trinket, is it?

luciusmann wrote:HE, no one would argue that the gold medal @ the Olympics is worth more than a slam but who was suggesting that? That doesn't mean it's valueless, as it seems to come across in your wording of the options 'ultimate prize'. Instead of saying that, perhaps saying, is the Olympic's gold an important prize and you may get a very different answer. The way you've worded the question is rather biased.

It is an important occasion. Just ask Federer who won the doubles gold. He has played in three Olympics, getting ready for his fourth.

BTW, can anyone name another athlete who has four consecutive appearances at the Olympics, a span of 16 years?

Well said laverfan, the voice of reason, as ever.

I just finished reading John McEnroe's autobiography and he says it's a regret of his that he didn't win or do well in the Olympics (as long with his famous French Open loss....), I mean, if it's so insignificant why does he even bother to mention it in the first place....?

The real issue isn't whether the Olympics is as important as a slam, (clearly it isn't) but for the very top players, it is useful to have, as shown by what other top players have said, past and present. As tennis becomes more established as an Olympics sport, so it's importance will grow, whether it will equal that of a slam, is of course another matter though.

Thanks, Lucius.

4 Olympics is span of 12 years, surely?

laverfan wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

laverfan wrote:
BTW, can anyone name another athlete who has four consecutive appearances at the Olympics, a span of 16 years?

Sir Steve? (I trust you mean athletes in general and not just tennis players)

Sir Steve Redgrave is one of them.

Excellent.

Here is a list (which needs some updating...) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athletes_with_the_most_appearances_at_Olympic_Games

2012 ????? London Finn
2008 Gold Beijing Finn
2004 Gold Athens Finn
2000 Gold Sydney Laser
1996 Silver Atlanta Laser

JuliusHMarx wrote:4 Olympics is span of 12 years, surely?

I knew 2000-2012 should be 12 years. Perhaps I am thinking of Rio 2016.

I think the Olympics tennis is a bit more special this time as it's at a GS venue, but no way is it as important as winning a slam.
Murray for example could win the Gold but he would have much preferred to have beaten Federer at SW19 earlier this month.
As for Fed an Olympic gold would be the icing on the cake as it'll be something new for him. But the pinnacle of tennis, it aint.

Winning the gold was a huge thing for Dementieva since it had a big focuse from her Russian compatriots. Likewise I'd guess for a Chinese athlete winning gold at the Olympics might be bigger than a slam. For Federer it would complete the individual set, I suspect for Djoko as a Serb it would be huge. It would be big for Murray, but nothing like winning Wimbledon itself.

Putting such specific situations aside I think that the Olympics is somewhere between the more and less prestigious tennis masters series tournaments.

Undeniably an Olympic Gold gets more exposure outside tennis than anything but a slam, but tennis players are very much in the tennis world and I'd say that winning the WTF or at Rome or Miami is clearly a bigger deal than an Olympic Gold. With some of the other Masters it's a much closer run thing. Being at SW19 this year undeniably makes it more special.

It is not the most pretigious prize in tennis - that probably has to be Wimbledon, closely followed by the other 3 majors.

However an Olympic gold is a very special and unique accolade for any athlete even if it is not their sport's ultimate prize.

I guess the fact the Olympics is every 4 years makes it much more of an honour more than the holy grail of tennis. The Slams will always be the holy grail of any modern tennis professional.

It is nice title to have on the CV, though I doubt the likes of Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer would lose sleep over not having it on their titles collection.

It's a nice touch that it is finally being played on the grass courts of Wimbledon.

bogbrush wrote:What's a 'writer' on 606v2?

It's someone who writes for our sister site: http://v2journal.com/index.html Some good stuff there all from the visitors of this joint.