by mick1303 This question is two-sided:
1) For the majority of players - at face value. Which one is a better career highlight if they do not have a slam. Let's compare Mark Rosset and Nick Massu against David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko
2) For the greats who have won almost all there is to win - which one is a bigger missing piece of a puzzle. Compare Nadal (no YEC) with Federer (no Gold)

by skatingfan The year-end championship for either tour is an important tennis tournament, but it makes no impact outside of tennis.

by meganfernandez

skatingfan wrote:The year-end championship for either tour is an important tennis tournament, but it makes no impact outside of tennis.

Right. For this reason, gold medal. For prestige. But the YEC carries a lot of points and prize money and has equal prestige - at least - inside tennis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by mmmm8 I think the YEC is over-valued because year-end number 1 is/was often decided at or near it, so the tennis world pays attention. Winning it I don't think lives up to winning Olympic gold, in the career long run.

Thus, I don't think Rosset or Massu are good examples because they didn't really have a shot at YEC or the slams, the question is, what's more important for those who have a shot at both? I'd say Slam>Olympics>YEC. I would even think that something like an IW/Miami double ot an Olympics silver might even come before YEC.

by ponchi101 I am not saying I disagree with your take, but I find it super interesting and a bit odd. The YEC is the sole tournament where you get the top 8 players of the year. Winning it means you have beat the best of the best.
I agree that it has lost luster because it has no fixed venue and there have been a couple of odd winners in the last years (Dimitrov, for example). But it has a tradition that the Olympics can't match.
Gotta give it more thought, I guess.

by mick1303

mmmm8 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 3:24 am I think the YEC is over-valued because year-end number 1 is/was often decided at or near it, so the tennis world pays attention. Winning it I don't think lives up to winning Olympic gold, in the career long run.

Thus, I don't think Rosset or Massu are good examples because they didn't really have a shot at YEC or the slams, the question is, what's more important for those who have a shot at both? I'd say Slam>Olympics>YEC. I would even think that something like an IW/Miami double ot an Olympics silver might even come before YEC.

The fact that Rosset or Massu never had a chance to win YEC in my view has an opposite meaning. It stresses the importance of YEC. There are plenty of sports (in fact - the overwhelming majority) where Olympic gold is a crown achievement. But tennis is not one of them.

by ponchi101 The Olympics. Zero tradition, less than 50 years being played, lots of odd winners.
Just look at the list of players that won Monte Carlo. That tells you how important it is. The Olympics will never match that.

by skatingfan

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 10:33 pm The Olympics. Zero tradition, less than 50 years being played, lots of odd winners.
Just look at the list of players that won Monte Carlo. That tells you how important it is. The Olympics will never match that.

Which one is likely to start an obituary - Olympic Champion or Monte Caro Champion?

by ponchi101 In a tennis magazine, MC. Everywhere else, you are right.

by mmmm8

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:04 am In a tennis magazine, MC. Everywhere else, you are right.

1. I think even there, it'd be ranking, then Olympics (if gold), then MC
2. Are there any physical tennis magazines left?

by ponchi101 I should have said TENNIS FORUM
Somebody should start one of those...

by Suliso Olympic champions are more rare. YEC winners most of the time correspond to Slam winners.

by Suliso Belinda Bencic for example will be remembered as an Olympic champion. Unless she comes back and wins a Slam.

by mick1303 My point was that if we exclude Slam winners and compare players who have either YEC or Olympic Gold but not both of them (Zverev is a unique case and as such is also excluded), then YEC winners seem to come out as more successful players.
On men's side we have Nalbandian, Davydenko, Dimitrov, Tsitsipas and Corretja against Mecir, Massu and Rosset. Every other YEC and Olympic winners have Slam titles, which disqualifies them from this comparison.
I consider all the players from "YEC only" list as having a better careers than Rosset and Massu. This leads me to the conclusion that Gold Medal has a tendency towards more random winners.
On the women's side we have Zheng (too early to tell yet, she may win a slam), Bencic and Puig against Radwanska, Cybulkova, Svitolina and Garcia. Not that obvious here.
Let's look at career winning percentages. I have WTA data through this year Wimbledon:
Radwanska (Y) - 68.24
Svitolina (Y) - 64.63
Bencic (O) - 61.33
Zheng (O) - 60
Cibulkova (Y) - 58.4
Garcia (Y) - 56.72
Puig (O) - 49.82
It is scattered, but overall YEC winners are a bit better.

by mick1303

Suliso wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 4:36 pm Olympic champions are more rare. YEC winners most of the time correspond to Slam winners.

Olympic champions are rare because for each Olympics there are 4 YEC. Obviously they are less frequent. But we have 16 Slams at the same period. And it does not prevent us from treating Slams much higher than Olympics. So this straightforward logic "more rare" does not work all the time.

by Owendonovan You can wear an Olympic medal as jewelry, you can't wear a trophy as jewelry.

by ponchi101

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2024 1:23 pm You can wear an Olympic medal as jewelry, you can't wear a trophy as jewelry.

That settles it!