Whisper, Olympics in 7543

[*skriptis]

Have you worked it out, does it merit to be part of the equation?

The shift in narrative regarding Djokovic is huge.

I thought slam number 23 last year (and being a third FO, achieving triple CGS) would sway people, but it was not the case as much as it was with the Olympics.

Is olympic gold something that's "necessary" or worth only for goat candidates to check all boxes or is it a major achievement in its own right? If it is a major achievement then does it merit 7543 inclusion?

[Whisper]

Post by *skriptis
Have you worked it out, does it merit to be part of the equation?
The shift in narrative regarding Djokovic is huge.
I thought slam number 23 last year (and being a third FO, achieving triple CGS) would sway people, but it was not the case as much as it was with the Olympics.
Is olympic gold something that's "necessary" or worth only for goat candidates to check all boxes or is it a major achievement in its own right? If it is a major achievement then does it merit 7543 inclusion?

Absolutely yes, not doubles though as we don't count grand slam doubles
either.

My gut feeling is it's worth a USO if it was held every year, but every
4 makes it more valuable. On the negative side is a lot of good players
aren't in the field, and also it's bo3. I'm thinking somewhere between
5 and 10 pts - 5 at the minimum. I get that a lot of lesser players
have won gold that weren't competitive in slams eg Massu, Rosset, Puig
which I guess you can compare to amateur era in tennis. Then again you
also look at the impressive names that have won singles gold;


Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Murray
Mecir

Graf
Serena
Venus
Henin
Capriati
Davenport
Moody
Lenglen


3 of the big 4 of this era have won it in the last 5 Olympiads ie
Nadal/Murray/Djokovic, and even Federer got a silver not too shabby.
Carlos silver too in his very young career so far. So it's the cream of
the cream winning it now.

All the women greats who got a chance to compete ended up winning the
gold, too bad for Navratilova/Evert/Court etc who never had the
opportunity. Iga failing when it was all set up for her at Roland
Garros is a big mark against her. A bit like Federer not winning when
it was at Wimbledon. Novak snatching it at his last opportunity at age
37 v the toughest opponent imaginable is just incredible.

Does Massu gold make his achievement better than Cash or Stich 1
Wimbledon? Probably not. But it has to be worth at least a USO, 5 pts.
Maybe more?

[*skriptis]

On 9/08/2024 4:13 am, *skriptis wrote:> Have you worked it out, does it merit to be part of the equation?> > The shift in narrative regarding Djokovic is huge.> > I thought slam number 23 last year (and being a third FO, achieving triple CGS) would sway people, but it was not the case as much as it was with the Olympics.> > Is olympic gold something that's "necessary" or worth only for goat candidates to check all boxes or is it a major achievement in its own right? If it is a major achievement then does it merit 7543 inclusion?> > Absolutely yes, not doubles though as we don't count grand slam doubles either.My gut feeling is it's worth a USO if it was held every year, but every 4 makes it more valuable. On the negative side is a lot of good players aren't in the field, and also it's bo3. I'm thinking somewhere between 5 and 10 pts - 5 at the minimum. I get that a lot of lesser players have won gold that weren't competitive in slams eg Massu, Rosset, Puig which I guess you can compare to amateur era in tennis. Then again you also look at the impressive names that have won singles gold;DjokovicNadalAgassiMurrayMecirGrafSerenaVenusHeninCapriatiDavenportMoodyLenglen3 of the big 4 of this era have won it in the last 5 Olympiads ie Nadal/Murray/Djokovic, and even Federer got a silver not too shabby. Carlos silver too in his very young career so far. So it's the cream of the cream winning it now.All the women greats who got a chance to compete ended up winning the gold, too bad for Navratilova/Evert/Court etc who never had the opportunity. Iga failing when it was all set up for her at Roland Garros is a big mark against her. A bit like Federer not winning when it was at Wimbledon. Novak snatching it at his last opportunity at age 37 v the toughest opponent imaginable is just incredible.Does Massu gold make his achievement better than Cash or Stich 1 Wimbledon? Probably not. But it has to be worth at least a USO, 5 pts. Maybe more?

You ended with question. ;)



I think maybe it's too early for this debate to be settled.

Personally I believe if we did proper tennis goat calculations, doubles should be included.

When we choose greatest swimmer, all disciplines count, no?

We should do that in tennis.

But I'd say in tennis we could employ some sort of scale.

Worth of slam

1 - singles
1/4 - doubles
1/8 - mixed

This is also very similar to prize money and u reckon it's kinda representative of relative values.


Olympics is well, in theory, beyond anything else in sport, but not always. I'd have Olympics equal to slam, but Wimbledon cca at 150% of other slams.


The thing is, I'd have single gold = doubles gold = mixed gold.

Why?

In singles I can imagine Wimbledon being the biggest prize in tennis, but in doubles or mixed doubles, no way.

This also keeps value of olympic gold consistent which is how it should be.




However for Djokovic this title meant more than a single point at any goat scale, it means completing the entire ludicrous set of 16 most important trophies in tennis and for that reason it's incalculable imo.

4 slams
1 Olympics
1 YEC
9 ATP1000s
1 DC

[jdeluise]

Post by Whisper

Post by *skriptis
Have you worked it out, does it merit to be part of the
equation?
The shift in narrative regarding Djokovic is huge.
I thought slam number 23 last year (and being a third FO,
achieving
triple CGS) would sway people, but it was not the case as much
as it
was with the Olympics.
Is olympic gold something that's "necessary" or worth only for
goat
candidates to check all boxes or is it a major achievement in
its
own right? If it is a major achievement then does it merit 7543
inclusion?

Absolutely yes, not doubles though as we don't count grand slam
doubles either.
My gut feeling is it's worth a USO if it was held every year,
but
every 4 makes it more valuable. On the negative side is a lot
of good
players aren't in the field, and also it's bo3. I'm thinking
somewhere between 5 and 10 pts - 5 at the minimum. I get that a
lot
of lesser players have won gold that weren't competitive in
slams eg
Massu, Rosset, Puig which I guess you can compare to amateur era
in
tennis. Then again you also look at the impressive names that
have
won singles gold;
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Murray
Mecir
Graf
Serena
Venus
Henin
Capriati
Davenport
Moody
Lenglen
3 of the big 4 of this era have won it in the last 5 Olympiads
ie
Nadal/Murray/Djokovic, and even Federer got a silver not too
shabby. Carlos silver too in his very young career so far. So
it's
the cream of the cream winning it now.
All the women greats who got a chance to compete ended up
winning the
gold, too bad for Navratilova/Evert/Court etc who never had the
opportunity. Iga failing when it was all set up for her at
Roland
Garros is a big mark against her. A bit like Federer not
winning when
it was at Wimbledon. Novak snatching it at his last opportunity
at
age 37 v the toughest opponent imaginable is just incredible.
Does Massu gold make his achievement better than Cash or Stich 1
Wimbledon? Probably not. But it has to be worth at least a
USO, 5
pts. Maybe more?

meh. Plenty of tournaments with a long history have a lot of
greats as champs. Sorry, Olympics is kinda like a glorified exo.
A step above Davis Cup, maybe, but still below MC. Nowhere near a
major.

[jdeluise]

Post by jdeluise

Post by Whisper

Post by *skriptis
Have you worked it out, does it merit to be part of the
equation?
The shift in narrative regarding Djokovic is huge.
I thought slam number 23 last year (and being a third FO,
achieving
triple CGS) would sway people, but it was not the case as much
as
it
was with the Olympics.
Is olympic gold something that's "necessary" or worth only for
goat
candidates to check all boxes or is it a major achievement in
its
own right? If it is a major achievement then does it merit
7543
inclusion?

Absolutely yes, not doubles though as we don't count grand slam
doubles either.
My gut feeling is it's worth a USO if it was held every year,
but
every 4 makes it more valuable. On the negative side is a lot
of
good
players aren't in the field, and also it's bo3. I'm thinking
somewhere between 5 and 10 pts - 5 at the minimum. I get that
a lot
of lesser players have won gold that weren't competitive in
slams eg
Massu, Rosset, Puig which I guess you can compare to amateur
era in
tennis. Then again you also look at the impressive names that
have
won singles gold;
Djokovic
Nadal
Agassi
Murray
Mecir
Graf
Serena
Venus
Henin
Capriati
Davenport
Moody
Lenglen
3 of the big 4 of this era have won it in the last 5 Olympiads ie
Nadal/Murray/Djokovic, and even Federer got a silver not too
shabby. Carlos silver too in his very young career so far. So
it's
the cream of the cream winning it now.
All the women greats who got a chance to compete ended up
winning
the
gold, too bad for Navratilova/Evert/Court etc who never had the
opportunity. Iga failing when it was all set up for her at
Roland
Garros is a big mark against her. A bit like Federer not
winning
when
it was at Wimbledon. Novak snatching it at his last
opportunity at
age 37 v the toughest opponent imaginable is just incredible.
Does Massu gold make his achievement better than Cash or Stich 1
Wimbledon? Probably not. But it has to be worth at least a
USO, 5
pts. Maybe more?

meh. Plenty of tournaments with a long history have a lot of
greats
as champs. Sorry, Olympics is kinda like a glorified exo. A
step
above Davis Cup, maybe, but still below MC. Nowhere near a
major.

Below YEC, not MC....