Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam

Slam finals you just turn up each year for and have a pop at it, so over the space of 4 years you have 16 pops at a singles Grand Slam title but only at the Olympic title.

*one

Olympic football is for under 23's, nothing like the football world cup

If you asked any tennis player if they would rather win a Grand Slam event or the Olympix gold you are only getting one answer. In the past players didn't even care a little bit about the Olympix and you had journeymen like Massu and Rosset winning mens gold.

Didnt know a tennis players career was a maximum of four years

@ themover

@fayaz

over 8 years you have 32 pops at a Grand Slam but only 2 at Olympic Gold

over 12 years etc etc

There's lots of muppets around no wonder it's so easy to make money. Keep it up I say.

these slam winners can go for quantity not quality if they want to but Gold for your country is much bigger

Certainly above Doha, just below Kitzbuhel for me

hope you won on Murray YOHOMMA. Pretty straightforward gold against these season Slam players that go for the quantity.

Murray would swap this for a grand slam in a heart beat

With few ranking pts at stake and £0 prize money you can see why half the players aren't too bothered.

Yer but I still congratulate Murray for winning this. Well done to him.

Even Gonzo was finalist last time

Well done Muzza for winning the gold, only i don't think it is at the top of all players lists as a tournamnet they really feel they want to win.

Congrats to Murray! I am not a big supporter of British sports generally but I really wanted Andy to win this. He is too good a player not to win some big tournament. I even lost some money here but happy for Andy.

you can see what it means to the players just by the reaction of the Bronze medal winner. 3rd in a Grand Slam you get called a mug for not making the final in the Olympics you go down in history as an Olympian medalist.

DelPo still is a mug for not making the final...mug

I wouldn't call the 3rd best player in the world a mug. He would have liked to have got to the final but is over the moon with his Bronze.

To add: Sure it is not GS this Olympics but I think most of the players regard this as quite big. I understand players who have no chance to win this, it is easy for them to concentrate on tournaments with prize money. Equally it was understandable that Fish who already had a medal was not interested to take part.

Murray had to beat Djokovic and Federer to win gold, not like he beat a load of mugs FFS

It means a lot to the winner, the losers aren't that bothered

someone will be telling me that Murray isn't the best player in the world now even though he is the Olympic champion. They will come up with something about him not having as many points as someone else. They might also tell me Azarenka is the best female player because of all her points.

there isn't a World Champion at tennis because there isn't such a tournament, so only an Olympic Champion every 4 years a bit like the football world cup.

Really? So what are the would tour finals all about?

thx Murray for donating us 4 more years in the career of Roger Federer

As always bb666, very well said Sir!

bb66 lets hope so

hollywood85     05 Aug 12 16:20 
No its not, its not even worth half the points
__________________

and this is why Tennis (and football) should NOT be part of the Olympics

I must be missing the point Coachbuster. Are you saying tennis shouldn't be part of the Olympics because it doesn't have any tour points associated to it?

Aug 5, 2012 -- 11:42PM, themover wrote:

I must be missing the point Coachbuster. Are you saying tennis shouldn't be part of the Olympics because it doesn't have any tour points associated to it?

The point is that players dont care much about it, hence not really in the true spirit of olympic games.

I think only only athletics should be part of the olympics... but thats just my opinion

5/5 sets in 2 days against nr 1 & 2, not broken once...the slams will follow now that he knows he can win a big event. It took him a bit longer to mature, but many will never get there.

it's similar to many professional sport disciplines that were put into the Games in the lat 25 years, an olympic win in cycling counts much less than a victory in the TdF for example.

Slams are much harder to win than the olympics... but I dont take any merit away from him, he played great tennis and was clearly the better player

It took him a bit longer to mature, but many will never get there.


I like that.

Hollywood is correct in as much as the likes of Djorkvic, Federer etc aren't part of the natural scenery .                They  have their own glory board at the 4 slams . I'm not sure a gold medal would mean as much to Murray as it would  to say Pendleton or Helen Glover ,if i was Murray i would feel i was hijacking the occasion . 
Nice to see BBC  shining the spotlight on lesser known names (with the obvious exception of Bolt) but that's  athletics , an integral part of this set up . 

Obviously you can pick 10s of holes in my argument (if it is one even) but tennis and football seem a little awkward .
The joy of the olympics imo is about relatively unknown folk putting in the grueling hours and getting recognition at the end

tennis isn't that awkward but football is as it's like a youth tournament

what's the point if the best don't play

Football has no place at the Olympics.

Tennis is debatable. But at least there is a debate.

i agree the best should always play - but would you honestly say Federer tried his absolute hardest ? will he be gutted that he missed out on the gold ?  will he be thinking feck,i have to wait another 4 years to get a chance to win that again  ?

and there is this debate earlier about the Olympics being of lesser value to AM than a slam -  that doesn't sit well - and yes ,it's true -Wimbledon will be a bigger prize of course .

Do you see where i'm coming from ?

The biggest prize for Olympic sports should be the olympics

Yes o course he'll be gutted. Federer has said it was his last ambition to win the olympics.

In other news, murray is up to 99% on the Murrayometer

http://www.andymurrayometer.com/

whether or not fed tried his hardest is irrelevant

he didn't get beaten narrowly, he was utterly destroyed

a bigger beatdown than murray took to djokovic in oz

and nobody questioned murray's effort

the occasion has often got to murray, today it got to fed and his opponent was unplayable

an irresistible combination that only leads to an utter maulication

fair enough ... what were the pre match odds on Murray winning in straight sets out of interest ?

didn't look actually

i even thought fed was value but did assume the roof would be shut and got to lay it off

Aug 6, 2012 -- 12:45AM, Coachbuster wrote:

The biggest prize for Olympic sports should be the olympics

You could debate whether that's the case for a lot of sports though. Individual world championships could be argued to be a greater prize than Olympics because the fields can be tougher due to individual qualification rules.

the qualification rules are admittedly hit and miss Darlo -

Oh well, it serves a purpose and works well overall - nice to see winners who are not only humble but there for the joy of winning and not just a ££££ wage package .

I agree with your sentiments. And I don't think there's any argument in the likes of swimming, rowing, cycling, athletics what the bigger price is to the athlete. But for example, in the cycling there can only be one entrant per country in Chris Hoy's event so he wasn't selected; I don't know for certain but doubt that would be the same in the Cycling Worlds.

I think the status of Olympics in tennis will rise during the next decades. A bit similarly as Australian Open which was not regarded so important just a few decades ago and many players did not enter it. Then since about 20-30 years ago when people began to focus on counting the GS win totals, AO became sort of equal with the other GSs. Olympics will after a few more tournaments gain some more tradition and then become even more respected.

Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam

No, it's not.

To win a GS you have to win 7 back to back best of 5 sets matches.

To win Olympic Gold you have to win only 6 matches, and only the last one is best of 5 sets, with the first 5 matches being only best of 3 sets...

It's as simple as that...

^^ completely agree with that - we all know murray can win best of 3 matches against anyone but during those grand slam semi final and finals where you have to beat djok, fed or nadal in 5 sets it is so much more difficult which is why a grand slam will mean so much more. Olympics is the highest prize outside the grand slams, bigger than the tour finals imo and until murray can win against the best for 5 sets for 2 weeks i can't see him as a great

he could have beaten fed over 99 sets yesterday tbf

only reason he didn't win wimbledon last month was cos of the roof

Another thing to consider in the mix

Slams are viewed above Tier 1/masters series not only on endurance and field but relative scarcity.
You only have 4 chances a year to win a slam (as opposed to numerous masters series) hence slams have more perceived value

You only have one chance in 4 years to be Olympic champion, hence it has from that perspective greater perceived value.

Also Murray now has the opportunity to complete a Golden Slam which Federer and Novak can not do.

This does not touch a grand slam.

will be interesting to see how fed reacts to the biggest disappointment of his career

not beyond the realms that his last big final will be that maulication

was backed in to about 13/2 to win in straights by the start

Of course it's not bigger than a slam, but it's the next best thing. Better than any Masters event and yes, better than the Davis Cup. All the talk of top players not caring is bollox. Fed's effort in the semi tells you all you need to know. Joker is a big patriot.
You just can't discredit Murray's victory here. He beat Joker and Fed, and he beat the GOAT on his favourite surface over 5 sets, not just beating him, taking him apart. To do it just a few weeks after the Wimbeldon final disappointment says a lot for Murray.

federer was almost crying and kissing the swiss badge when he beat delpo

never seen him react like that in a semi

i think it just meant too much and all the pressure plus murray's perfection left him stunned

and delpo's reaction to winning bronze shows what it meant to him.  plus he was in tears when he lost to fed.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Olympics+Day+9+Tennis+mxABFWthndUl.jpg

the players themselves may be delighted to win medals and fair enough

that though does not mean the competition has the same status as a slam

it clearly does not and that's all there is to it

that's all there is to it


Well no that's not correct, because you're not taking into account the trend.
Because tennis is relatively young as an Olympic sport in its present incarnation, its status has had to grow organically.
But as Macenroe pointed out the trend indicates that its staus will at least equal if not pass slam status as time goes on.

****, it was played at Wimbledon, historic place in tennis history...like players will give a **** about it in Rio...get real

phuck the trend

the OG is not and never will be as big as a slam

Ask the players if they'd rather win a slam or a gold and 99% at least would say a slam.

As I said earlier, the elation of winning it is born out of winning it as opposed to the desire to win it like in a slam.  There's a few players who take great pride in representing their country but the pain of losing doesn't come close to that of a slam even if the pride of winning does. 
Murray said he took 5-6 days to get over Wimbledon, he would have been over yesterday by now if he'd lost probably

but the pressure was far greater at wimbledon

he was the focus of the country

this time it's 500+ athletes and it showed by his tennis

more important? really? federer djokcovic and nadal if he had entered would have let murray win london olympics as they know he can never beat them in a grand slam

Here is the way to figure it out: Think at your favorite player that does not have a GS yet. If you could pick between a GS or a gold medal for him/her what would you choose? GS of course! I don't think Nicolas Massu or Marc Rosset will be regarded as greater players than say Haas, Nalbandian, Roddick, Berdych. You will find one time slam winners on the Tennis Hall of Fame but no olimpic gold winners without GS. Still a big achievement.

olympic gold back then and the eras meant it wasn't a big achievement

yesterday was wimbledon in one of the great eras

you clearly have no idea about the prestige and what it meant to the players

phuck the trend

Gordon Brown selling the country's gold reserves at under 300usd per ounce. The trend since then has gold at over five times that.
Trends dictate how the world develops and shifts, you can't ignore them on any level.

the OG is not and never will be as big as a slam

Ask the players if they'd rather win a slam or a gold and 99% at least would say a slam.

It is not as big at the moment (though its status is just behind and ahead of Masters series) but it will be for Fundamental reasons.
You cannot ignore the fundmentals in sport any more than you can ignore fundamentals in the commodity markets.

If you chart the seriousness with which the big players value the Olympics since 1988 the trend is clear and indisputable.

Aug 6, 2012 -- 1:55PM, canaryboy wrote:

olympic gold back then and the eras meant it wasn't a big achievementyesterday was wimbledon in one of the great erasyou clearly have no idea about the prestige and what it meant to the players

I get it now, is important when Murray is winning but not when Massu or Rosset did it. It is a big but not bigger than a GS. I say is bigger than a ATP 1000 and comparable with the YEC. If Murray can add a few GS to this gold and the Master 1000's it will look great indeed. Now it't an incomplete puzzle. Different story for Federer and Serena, they had everything but the olympic gold.

you're just a kid journeyman stfu there's a good chap

no matter how much you argue it will never be a slam and that's all now run along

no matter how much you argue it will never be a slam


I never said it was.
You've run out of arguments so you resort to abuse and disingenuity.

Case closed.

judorick owned in similar fashion to his norwich relegation thread

It is not as big at the moment (though its status is just behind and ahead of Masters series) but it will be for Fundamental reasons.
You cannot ignore the fundmentals in sport any more than you can ignore fundamentals in the commodity markets.

If you chart the seriousness with which the big players value the Olympics since 1988 the trend is clear and indisputable.

The fundamentals of it being a best of 3, one week event where you play most days whilst possibly playing doubles and mixed as well.  It may be on a upward trend but it's never going to get close to a slam

Don, you're right that being squeezed into a more intense, shorter time frame certainly makes it unlikely to be the same format as a slam in the forseeable future if ever.
That doesn't necessarily mean it can't pass it in status, as a self contained format, in the fullness of time.
e.g The significant differences in strategy between a 100m and 200m race. Michael Johnson last night pointing out the 100m has significantly less strategy but more status.

Especially if, as the status of Olympic tennis rises, there will be more pressure for the very best players to compete for maximum medals including doubles and MD (as you're right to imply I think) the demands on the players will be every bit as great as in a slam, but requiring a different strategy to overcome.

This edition was clearly overhyped as it was played at a legendary venue as Wimblendon is... but this whole thing will go back to normal as next Olympics will take place in Rio... most likely will be as good as Athens 2004 with 2 chileans on the podium as Nicolas Massu was getting gold...

e.g The significant differences in strategy between a 100m and 200m race. Michael Johnson last night pointing out the 100m has significantly less strategy but more status.

100m has more status because it's crowning the fastest man in the world, there's no lactic element or running a bend.  Less will never be more when it comes to tennis and the prestige of an event.

100m dash is the anticlimax of all olympic decisions!

Less will never be more when it comes to tennis and the prestige of an event.


That is anti-trend though. What are the grounds for a two week, seven match tennis tournament defining who is the best?
There are none, it's just the accepted format and it runs counter to the greater perception of sporting excellence being defined by producing maximum effectiveness in a pinpointed period of time.

The accepted norm is that Singles champions are 'superior' to doubles champions, but the Olympic format actually kicks that over with a sneer because medal count (particularly gold medal count) beats all.
Murray pointed that out himself, and the fact he got within two points of nailing two golds on the same day will underline that crucial difference in balance.

In fact there's every reason in fact to suggest that a player that can land golds in both singles and doubles in the same event, which require differently tailored approaches, has more right to the status of 'ultimate player' than one who simply wins seven singles matches in 14 days the most times.

This is why MacEnroe sees the trend so clearly, as he has spent years arguing the case for players proving themselves in both disciplines.

I'm pretty certain that Fed would swap the last Wimbledon for the Olympic gold medal.  He probably won't have a career golden slam now; Serena does in singles and in doubles and no one else can say that.  Murray will now have the opportunity to try and win every slam and do something Fed probably won't be able to.

Very true Djwebby.

Some perspective from the bronze medallist (source Tennis.com)

'Juan Martin del Potro who won Argentina's first medal of the Olympic Games when he defeated Novak Djokovic in the bronze-medal match, says that the win was one of the highlights of his career. "I know everybody in Argentina was following this match, trying to give me the power to play my best tennis. I really appreciated that. I think this gift is for all our country," he told reporters. "I'm the most happy man in the world at this moment."

'That is anti-trend though. What are the grounds for a two week, seven match tennis tournament defining who is the best?
There are none, it's just the accepted format and it runs counter to the greater perception of sporting excellence being defined by producing maximum effectiveness in a pinpointed period of time.'

How is it anti-trend, just because the Olympics is viewed in a slightly better light than it was in previous years?  How about the Australian Open, if trend continues then that'll be greater than Wimbledon. Sod trends there is a ceiling, and the ceiling for the Olympics is a level below that of a slam

- Bigger Field
- 5 sets, so on average the better player wins more
- Rest days for mental and physical recovery
- Playing for yourself vs playing for your country, different motivational levels and mental mindset
- No doubles affecting mindset and preparation
- Money motivation

And ignoring that yeah it is the accepted format, a 110m event might prove more exciting than 100m but it's never going to match it. 

And of course a single winner is superior to doubles, on paper both are gold medals but one is far more competitive, you telling me the 100m final carries the same credibility as the racewalk?

Fed wouldn't consider for a moment swapping Wimbledon for a singles gold even though he would have liked to add it

These aren't reasons for it being by definition a level below, they are a list of different challenges.

- Bigger Field - Ok but Olympics challenge is to take on a wider range of smaller specialised fields concurrently
- 5 sets, so on average the better player wins more - Olympics = Shorter format demands a more accurate implementation of effectiveness, aka the 100m
- Rest days for mental and physical recovery - Olympics = Different kind of challenge to keep the body functioning through a more intense sequence of demands
- Playing for yourself vs playing for your country, different motivational levels and mental mindset - Agreed
- No doubles affecting mindset and preparation Olympics = A more compound approach rather than slam based isolated approach. Neither being 'better' just different challenge
- Money motivation Olympics = Challenge to face the different pressure of playing for country

Yes the singles carries more staus than the doubles and probably will for a long time, but that's not the point.
Hoy riding with the three golds round his neck became an iconic image.

For Murray, one gold beat two silvers but one gold and a silver bettered just winning the gold.
That is where the Olympics are a shock/challenge to the system because in a slam even if murray was playing MD he wouldn't really care about it and we all know that.
But sheer medal count is an additional factor so that creates a challenge that is imo comparable to the standard 4 day singles challenge.

*14 day singles challenge

Fed wouldn't consider for a moment swapping Wimbledon for a singles gold even though he would have liked to add it


Federer has been targetting the London Olympics for years. By Murray beating him he is denied the second rarest achievement in tennis, the career golden slam.

There's only one human being on the planet to have achieved the RAREST achievement in tennis, ie the calendar golden slam
And that's Steffi Graf.

I am a Scot and am happy for Murray that he won a Gold in the Olympics. That said I would suggest there are TWO challenges that he must address within the next year or two (failure to do so will leave him feeling he is a failure)....he must WIN a Grand Slam and by doing so he will probably achieve the second .....moving into the top THREE, something he has failed to do so up til now. Yes, he is undoubtedly 4th best in the world but there appears to be quite a void between the top three and Murray.Winning the Gold Medal does NOT mean he is the best tennis player in the world and it would be naive to think so.

if he wins Toronto he gets top 3 i think

Therein lies the problem for Murray.By the "rankings" he could well break into the top 3 but inside Murrays head (and in the cold light of the day) he KNOWS Djokovic,Federer and Nadal are BETTER players than him. I do not believe that in ten years time Murray will be happy if the only thing he can show on his CV is an Olympic Gold Medal

Therein lies the problem for Murray.By the "rankings" he could well break into the top 3 but inside Murrays head (and in the cold light of the day) he KNOWS Djokovic,Federer and Nadal are BETTER players than him. I do not believe that in ten years time Murray will be happy if the only thing he can show on his CV is an Olympic Gold Medal

A lot of people mistake slam for grand slam... a Grand Slam is when you win all the slams in the same year, each individual tourney is only refered as a "Slam".  The Golden Grand Slam is made of Olympics and Grand Slam, hence winning all five in the same year

Federer has been targetting the London Olympics for years. By Murray beating him he is denied the second rarest achievement in tennis, the career golden slam.

And by winning Wimbledon he notched up GS 17, equalled Sampras's 7 Wimbledons, returned to No1 and set a new record for weeks at No1.
He'll have wanted to win the Gold a lot but not ahead of Wimbledon, no chance

At this point Federer is regarded as the best player ever even without Olympic Gold and Davis Cup. I'm sure if Murray hypothetically had the chance to choose between this year's Wimbledon and Olympic medal he will choose the slam. There's no question and you know it. Stop arguing over the importance of the Olympic event. It is important but the title says "Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam" wich i feel most people disagree with. As i said, this gold medal will look much better in the future if Murray adds a few slams. He is still the best player (ever ?) without a slam and that's not something to be very proud of.

tbf he already was WR #2 for 4 weeks (in 2009), and climbed to #3 several times.

Other than Fed expect Nadull to drop fast or even end his career soon being replaced by JMDP in the top 4.

DonNo1 is right. wimbledon #7 / GS#17 or an olympic gold is a no-brainer.

just because people want to believe murray has made that final breakthrough doesnt make it so

can't believe this knob still trying to argue this point

once the USO gets under way no one on the tour is going to pay any attention to murrays gold medal

Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam and whatever is more than some silly tennis (only ATP made tennis players heroes and idols).

How difficult is to win the Olympic Games shows the fact that one can easily win 17 GS tournaments but not a single gold medal at OG. Not being British myself (thank God) must say well done Murray!

"A lot of people mistake slam for grand slam... a Grand Slam is when you win all the slams in the same year, each individual tourney is only refered as a "Slam".  The Golden Grand Slam is made of Olympics and Grand Slam, hence winning all five in the same year"

Yes, even Sue Barker often refers to a Slam as a Grand Slam. It drives me nuts.

Is this the thread where a bunch of english suck their dciks and try to convince the world that a clearly inferior tourney is best than a slam?

yeah sure

tap tap murray,

The simple fact that Murray won it proves that Grand Slams are more important. FACT