Is Olympic gold more important than a Grand Slam win?
Roar Pro By Jocelyn McLennan, 24 Jul 2012 Jocelyn McLennan is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Olympics, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Rafael Nadal on Madrid's blue clay court (Image: Getty)
Related coverage
Defending gold medalist Rafael Nadal has withdrawn from the tennis competition at the London games citing a flare up in his troublesome knees.
The injury flared again during his French Open defense four weeks ago. While he did not withdraw from Wimbledon he clearly was below par and lost in the third round to Czech player Lukas Rosol.
Even as defending gold medallist does he view a gold medal at Olympics as highly as a grand slam win?
It could be could argued if he did, it would have made sense to withdraw from Wimbledon to save himself to try and prepare for the Games instead. Although Nadal has stated that he is bitterly disappointed at having to withdraw, it raises the question of its value on the grand scheme of things.
We have seen example of other athletes compete with broken bones rather than give up the chance of Olympic glory. Two Equestrian competitors spring to mind, Gillian Rolten and Bill Roycroft. The latter actually checked himself out of hospital to finish the competition.
This is not to say those who have won the Olympic gold and no other grand slam would not rate it as their career highlight. Elena Dementieva, Marc Rosset and Miloslav Mecir are examples.
But what of those who are already grand slam winners. Where do they rate it? Will Andy Murray prefer to win the gold medal at the Wimbledon courts or the gold urn at the annual tournament?
Roger Federer has stated that his 2008 doubles gold medal is one of the highlights of his career. He said ONE not THE.
Perhaps the best quote that sums up that type of mindset was Sydney gold medallist Russian Yevgeny Kafelnikov when reflecting on the win, “I would have traded all my other tournament titles EXCEPT my grand slams for this gold”. That clearly states that the Olympic win was not his career pinnacle.
Australian Bernard Tomic stated yesterday that he rates the gold medal higher than winning Wimbledon. Maybe after he wins both or either we will ask him to compare but at least one player has rated it as his Everest for now.
Several articles on the debate of what sports legitimately belong at the games have already been published at this web site. I can only concur with most. Perhaps the Ancient Greeks got it right in the first place.
No team sports, no second or third place. Only individuals compete and only winners acknowledged. On that score the only thing needing to be changed would be to allow women and perhaps clothing.
The Crowd Says (16) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Olympics, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Tennis, Yevgeny Kafelnikov
July 24th 2012 @ 12:38am
Johnno said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:38am | Report comment
-Nadal,steffi graff, federer rate it olympic gold medal win highly. The aussy players loved it in sydney 200 , scud, pat rafter, and lleyton, plus the 2 woodies. Alica molik and dokic liked it too.
-Marc Rosset and Micher as you said never won olympic gold and never won a grand slam.
-In a quirky way olympic gold in doubles means a lot and i always have enjoyed olympic doubles more than doubles grand slams.
-Barcelona 92 when Boris bekcer and micheal stitch won gold is just about the only doubles i watch along with davis cup doubles which is great fun.
-And India have done well at doubles too. launder paes won a bronze medal in singles, but they do okay at doubles, and the indian ladies player on the circuit right now Sania merza may get a medal. Tennis like golf and sevens rugby will get a good profile from the olympics.
-Soccer is the same issue and 7even’s olympic’s maybe. But unlike tennis they are totally different formats. Soccer is under 23 with 3 senior age players, still adults but under 23′s. But if you are 21 and a star like messi was by then in 2008, you can qualify as an under 23 anyway.
-And seven’s is differnet to 15 a side rugby.
-For me the pinnacle in singles tennis is still grand slams with wimbledon no 1
-then Olympic tennis
-then davis cup and fed cup
-But doubles Olympics and doubles davis cup i rate higher than grand slam doubles and that’s including wimbledon.
-And i believe for davis and fed cup to stay meaningful it should move to every 4 years as well.
July 24th 2012 @ 10:43am
Jocelyn McLennan said | July 24th 2012 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Sorry Johnno Rosset and Mecir did win Olympic gold. Mecir in 1988 and Rosset in 1992. Neither won a grand slam. I agree about the soccer issue being in the games. I refrained from commenting as is not my area of expertise.
July 26th 2012 @ 1:06pm
Matt F said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Soccer’s in the Olympics for financial reasons. It and Track & Field are the two most popular and lucrative sports (or in T&F’s case, group of sports) in the games by some distance
July 26th 2012 @ 1:34pm
clipper said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Mecir was by far the better player, but was hampered by chronic back pain – he was great to watch and often frustrated the Swedish players, of which there were quite a few at the time.
Perhaps when tennis was re introduced, it wasn’t taken as seriously, but over time it has gained traction, with Agassi and Nadal claiming the gold when at their peak.
July 24th 2012 @ 7:09am
sheek said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Jocelyn/Johnno,
I think in the main winning an Olympic gold medal is clearly not as important to tennis players as winning a major. Sure, they might say it means a lot to them, but mostly it’s a jaunt, a novelty, a diversion from the majors.
On the other hand, I do think there is a place for some team sports. Tennis, Football & Basketball don’t really need to be there, but hockey & volleyball (both forms) seem to have their place.
Having placegetters is fine, & I won’t say what I think about clothing (especially with beautiful, young, fit women!).
If only they could find a way to make a level playing field with drug cheats…..
July 24th 2012 @ 7:30am
GCS said | July 24th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Doesn’t seem to be rated as highly as a slam, but I think the players like being part of the Olympic team and mixing with other athletes. Geoff Ogilvy said yesterday that if golf is included in 2016, then he would be really looking forward to it, not so much for the golf but for the Olympic experience.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:00am
Mantis said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:00am | Report comment
I have an issue with sports being in the Olympics that arent the pinnacle of their sport, i.e. Tennis, Soccer etc… Winning an Olympic gold medal should be the highlight of an athletes career. For tennis, soccer and afew other sports, it is not.
July 24th 2012 @ 11:51am
Tim said | July 24th 2012 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Okay simple facts need to be expressed here.
A Grand Slam tournament is worth 2000 points.
The next most important event is the World Tennis Finals (WTF) with the top 8 players only in it. If a player is unbeaten at that tournament they earn 1500 points
The next level of tournaments is the Masters 1000 series tournaments eg Monte Carlo, Madrid, Cincinnati etc. The winning player earns 1000 points
The Olympic Gold medalist earns 750 points.
Hope that puts it in perspective.
So summary, no the Olympics is not more important than a Grand Slam win – no where near it. It is a 4th tier tournament according to the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and the International Tennis federeation (ITF).
July 24th 2012 @ 12:08pm
Jocelyn McLennan said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
My point is whether tennis should be in the Olympics if it is not treated as the pinnacle of the game by all players?
July 24th 2012 @ 4:05pm
JamesJackson said | July 24th 2012 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I’m going to be honest Jocelyn, if that was your point in the article, I don’t think anyone got it. The article meandered a bit too much, and your angle was unclear. You start the article about Nadal and his knees, then move onto examples of other players with no relatable quotes, then end it by making some pars that I’m not sure are meant to be tongue-in-cheek or simply statement of opinion.
The point of an opinion piece like this one is to state your argument then justify (obviously), but you take an objective ‘news-worthy’ approach at the start then twist it into a thought-stream in the middle.
And if your mission was to create a launching point for discussion, you didn’t make it clear as to what that discussion was meant to be about. My .02
July 24th 2012 @ 12:51pm
Johnno said | July 24th 2012 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
-Tell any tennis player they would not love to win an olympic gold medal, they’d take a gold medal any day of the week. Great to have on your CV, and sponsorship deals. Marc Rosset never won anything but everyone remembered him being a gold medalist.
July 24th 2012 @ 1:35pm
Jocelyn McLennan said | July 24th 2012 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Yes of course they would but my point is if they had to choose between having the Olympic Gold Medal OR the Gold Urn of Wimbledon which one do you think they would chose?…..that is my point….would Marc Rosset have preferred a grand slam to the gold medal I think they would remember him more if he had won Wimbledon thant the gold….and what of Nicolás Massú the 2004 gold medalist…how many non tennis players have heard of him….and would they know his name if he had won the US Open that year instead?
.
July 24th 2012 @ 2:12pm
sheek said | July 24th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Jocelyn,
Obviously there’s worse things in life than competing at the Olympics, isn’t there? Sure it does mean something.
But in the context of what you’re asking, most tennis players rate the majors way above winning a gold medal at the Olympics.
Sure, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Win a gold medal at the Olympics? Awesome!
But it’s still all about the majors, as far as most tennis players are concerned.
To answer your question, the Olympics doesn’t need tennis. And tennis does quite well without the Olympics.
But the Olympics is all about making a Scrooge McDuck like personal bank vault of money. The IOC would also pull in golf, NFL, Nascars, F1 & whatever else they could lay their hands on if they thought they could get away with it. I’m sure they’re losing their perspective on reality, if not already…..
July 24th 2012 @ 9:27pm
Johnno said | July 24th 2012 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Jocelyn if you ever get the time could you do an article on the davis cup and fed cup and there futures, You ahveing played high level tennis clearly know about the sport. Maybe if you want too on tennis, and even about australia’s decline in tennis general i don’t know .
July 26th 2012 @ 9:07am
k77sujith said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Slams are clearly the biggest attraction for any tennis player. Even the athletes who compete at the Olympics, once they win Gold, there’s an emphasis on personal glory rather than the nation. In the years to follow, the athlete would be referred to as…Gold medal winner XX. Yes, they all do compete for their respective nations, but I feel the prime objective is personal glory. They are all great athletes but their press conferences clearly indicate their main aim. Thanks.
July 26th 2012 @ 1:52pm
Johnno said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
-Thus purists or purity argument with the Olympics is really annoying me to be honest. We live in the era of pro sports. The Olympics should reflect that. Why should the Olympics stay amateur, or not put in sports that make the IOC big $$$$.
-The fans want it too. Tv ratings for soccer and tennis are high $$$$, and i think 7evens rugby will be too. Having soccer in the olympcis and tennis is great for exposure of these sports in new markets. Heck I would of kept baseball in the Olympics too good to expose the sport. So get as many sports in the Oolympcis as possible great for making money, and you the viewer has the power. If you don’t want to watch Olympic soccer, baseball, tennis. Don’t watch it but many people do. And times and traditions change. And right now for me the Olympics should be a reflection of the modern world not an ancient history lesson in ethics and morals.
The Olympics should represent making money $$$$, capitalism , and also exposure to as many sports as possible. Cal it a sports expo, or a an events conference too promote your sport $$$$, but i say get more in the better eg T20 cricket should come in, and netball too. And if you don’t like it as the viewer don’t watch it.
-But there are 7billion people in the world all with different tastes, there are makerts of people who do want to see Olympic netball, and couldn’t give a stuff about this myth to me anyway, of devaluing the Olympics. It is about making money no 1. And for all the whingers who say otherwise, sports like soccer and tennis, pay for all the infrastructure and expensive stadiums that cost the taxpayer big money . So the higher tv ratings mens less cost $$$$ for the taxpayers.
-So the Olympics to me should be a modern history lesson of the world and where we are at, not an ancient history lesson.
-Money Money Money. Just accept it people.