Tennis at the Olympics - yay or nay?

First topic message reminder :

Tennis at the Olympics seems to be growing in importance each time it comes around. 12 or 8 years ago, it wasn't a top event, probably not even up there with a Masters such as Miami. Even 4 years ago Roddick gave it a miss to concentrate on the US Open and Fish also passed saying "I've already done the whole thing". Gasquet also passed and Murray lost in the first round citing an 'unprofessional' attitude i.e. I wasn't really that bothered.

Agassi winning in 1996 gave it some credibility as did Rafa 4 years ago and Fed, Nadal, and Djoko have always seemed up for it, more than many other players.

Personally I've never thought tennis should be at the Olympics, which should be for sports where winning a gold medal is the absolute pinnacle of the sport.

Discus (or is that a field event?)

I don't think I'd heard of Fed in 1988 (when I first objected to tennis in the Olympics - not on the internet obviously, but to anyone at my club who would listen), but I was a big Agassi fan and I treat his Olympic Gold the same way he treated it in his book - barely worth a mention.

Turning a legitimate argument around into a 'fed apologists' argument is so predictable, but so sad.
What do you say to the Olympic athletes in LuvSports blog who are strongly opposed to football being in the Olympics?

socal1976 wrote:Mad for Chelsea I bet the opinion of a lot of Murray fans will change if Murray wins.

mine wouldn't. i'd of course be delighted were Murray to win the Olympics, but then, I was delighted when Murray won Bangkok last year.

socal1976 wrote:And this idea that if the olympics isn't the pinnacle than the sport should not be in the games would elimate 70 percent of the most popular events.

Really? Which ones? Football, tennis, road cycling. Any others?

socal1976 wrote: I guess everyone in the world and the olympic comittee just disagrees with you and so do I.

apart from quite a few on this thread to start with, and most of my family, in fact most people I've talked to about this subject. I don't really mind being in a minority anyway.

BB, that is what Tenez said and i am sure that if Roger won the olympics beating nadal in the gold medal match that all you Fed fans would be in here talking about how valuable the olympics are. And Tenez a lot of people have stopped reading your pablum a long time ago. I skim through it for comedic value. But this time you made a freudian slip and exposed the fed apologist agenda for all to see. If Roger wins it then it is important.

Mad for Chelsea, NBA championship is the be all and end all for anyone who knows anything at all about basketball, last time I checked Tony Parker and Dirk Nowitzki said the same thing and neither one was born in America or is an American citizen like me. The olympics isn't even an aferthought to an Nba championship for a real pro basketball fan.

hmm not sure I agree with that, we may have to agree to disagree. I'm not really saying tennis should be removed from the Olympics (though I personally don't see the point of it), but certainly a win at the Olympics ranks some way below a win at slam or Masters level for me.

If it makes you feel better I am sure Novak would trade his title in Estoril for the olympic gold Mad for chelsea. Its the olympics and people value it. I didn't just make that up, and it matters little or none at all that some fed fanatics on the net fail to recognize the value. Their godhead and yahweh Roger Federer has nonstop talked about it for the last 4 years and how he wants to play till the olympics. Novak the world's number #1 and the most dedicated Davis Cup players has withdrawn from the DAvis cup to play, that should tell you how important it is. I don't see Roger saying he wants to play till the Bangkok open MFC.

It really is sad that deranged Fedmania will somehow block the federettes from being able to acknowledge that the olympics has some value in the resume. Just because Nadal won the singles gold and Roger didn't. If Roger beat nadal in the final in 2008 how many of you would honestly be talking this nonsense?

Same discussion from 2008 (before the final)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/05/should_tennis_be_an_olympic_sp.html

"Tennis players, in a year where Beijing is playing havoc with their schedule, clearly see the Olympics as a pleasant distraction at best, and an unnecessary hassle at worst.
So is it time organisers took this on board and quietly dropped tennis from the list of Olympic sports? It's hard to see many tennis players complaining if it happened, and would fans of the sport lose out? Probably not."

I hate the way those Fed fanatics write blogs for the BBC.

socal1976 wrote:If Roger beat nadal in the final in 2008 how many of you would honestly be talking this nonsense?

Me, for one, definitely. Socal, you're the one who has turned this into a Fedal debate and refuse to acknowledge that it isn't. Not everything in tennis is about those two and not everything you disagree with is nonsense.

See, the difference between socal and me is that my opinions are based 0% on what Roger Federer thinks. He seems to think people should take their line from what a sporting person says, but i guess that's just the way he sees things. What a shame.

Tennis at the Olympics is a joke. Football a truly great one. Boxing, at amateur level only is ok but it's a stepping stone really to bigger things in the professional arena.

Now for Athletics, it's #1!!!!!!

Which is why I only watch the athletics at the Olymipcs. And the beach volleyball.

socal1976 wrote:BB, that is what Tenez said and i am sure that if Roger won the olympics beating nadal in the gold medal match that all you Fed fans would be in here talking about how valuable the olympics are. And Tenez a lot of people have stopped reading your pablum a long time ago. I skim through it for comedic value. But this time you made a freudian slip and exposed the fed apologist agenda for all to see. If Roger wins it then it is important.

Mad for Chelsea, NBA championship is the be all and end all for anyone who knows anything at all about basketball, last time I checked Tony Parker and Dirk Nowitzki said the same thing and neither one was born in America or is an American citizen like me. The olympics isn't even an aferthought to an Nba championship for a real pro basketball fan.

Oh you sad guy, he was taking the p*ss out of you. And true to form you fell for it big time.

Some people just can't be helped.

Socal i didnt say anything about novak mannnn.

I watch the olympics for track and field, hockey and cycling.

For the dyed in the wool tennis fan, the Olympics is a distraction. The tournament has very little value in terms of judging a tennis player compared to say winning a Grand Slam tournament.

The Olympics is a best of three set tournament - with 6 rounds so nearly comparable to a Master series (but not quite). It occurs every four years and on different surfaces, locations and conditions. It is therefore not as good a measure of tennis ability as the year on year record of a player at a particular Masters event.

It is merely an add-on tournament in the career of a professional tennis player, and has little value when assessing the career merit of the player (probably comparable to one off masters events).

BB, I am not nearly as worked up about the olympics as you are. Did I touch a nerve? I could care less if you guys don't think it should be part of the olympics, it is. Just like I care very little that you believe tennis has become unwatchable or that the style doesn't suit your taste, I still watch it and enjoy it thoroughly. You are the same genius who claimed that Novak is another lleyton hewitt, from that day on and on numerous other occassions the value of your opinion lost all value for me. I post what I feel and when you get your panties in a bunch I just shrug. Because frankly your warped views of tennis don't mean that much to me.

Tennis is in the olympics and most people are happy about it. The modern game is loved by the vast majority of fans as the reviews from the AO final indicate. Whether you and Tenez the self appointed guardians of tennis agree or not doesn't mean much to me or to the world at large.

Yeah, means nothing so you write about it endlessly.

i would like to see olympic tennis follow olympic football by can take part by putting an exclusion of over 23s like the football. This will never happen though as olympics is not a charity it's a business and the host city need to make as much money as possible

I think the idea of Olympic tennis is very popular among a lot of players.
Tennis is obviously a relatively young olympic sport, but many players grew up with the glamour of an olympic medal and is just another thing they can win.

Although it's got nothing with Davis Cup, I'd say players who care for Davis cup will care for the Olympic games, as well.

Tennis there is irrelevant.

I've always had quite a different viewpoint to the norm and I've always felt that almost every sport should be at the Olympics, and so I like the fact there are tennis medals to be won.

I guess the one place where it perhaps isn't the best is that the number from one country is curtailed I believe, meaning even if you are one of the "relative" top players in the world, you'll miss out if there is a plethora of top players from your country. Spain and possibly France are the ones that come to mind.

ryan86 wrote:I've always had quite a different viewpoint to the norm and I've always felt that almost every sport should be at the Olympics, and so I like the fact there are tennis medals to be won...

Since there is a set number of Gold medals to be won, tennis is included at the expense of other sports / events.