2012 Olympics

[maplesyrup]

Beowulf, is the 400m less signigicant than the 800m because it's shorter?

 

[bustaheims]

I just don't know, busta... I'm curiuos to hear what Murray and all the previous Olympic gold medal winners in Tennis say about where their victory ranks in their lifetime accomplishments. - Right at the top, I'm guessing.

Sure, subjectively, but that doesn't mean, in terms of objective value that they're the same, because, they're quite clearly not. Half the field size and shorter matches. These are significant factors. I'm sure if you asked those same players which tournament set ups they felt were more difficult, they'd go with the Grand Slam style.

 

[bustaheims]

Beowulf, is the 400m less signigicant than the 800m because it's shorter?

Not really a fair comparison, and you know that.

 

[maplesyrup]

I just don't know, busta... I'm curiuos to hear what Murray and all the previous Olympic gold medal winners in Tennis say about where their victory ranks in their lifetime accomplishments. - Right at the top, I'm guessing.

Sure, subjectively, but that doesn't mean, in terms of objective value that they're the same, because, they're quite clearly not. Half the field size and shorter matches. These are significant factors. I'm sure if you asked those same players which tournament set ups they felt were more difficult, they'd go with the Grand Slam style.

Sure, but that's still not really saying anything... What difference does that make if everyone is playing under the same rules?

 

[Beowulf]

According to?

Anyone who remotely follows tennis.

Well, I do so what you're saying just isn't true.

Well if you really did you'd understand the pressure/prestige/difficulty that comes with winning any of the four majors and no one would have to explain the setup of the event to you.

Nothing really compares, an Olympic gold - while a great result is not close to equivalent.

So to recap, a major consists of:

- Double the field
- Longer matches and more matches to win the tournament
- A two week event

Beowulf, is the 400m less signigicant than the 800m because it's shorter?

No offense Sgt, but really?

 

[maplesyrup]

Beowulf, is the 400m less signigicant than the 800m because it's shorter?

Not really a fair comparison, and you know that.

Why not? What if say, the Stanly Cup playoff series get moved to 5 games from 7? Do they become less significant to the athletes in the future because they are shorter? 

 

[maplesyrup]

According to?

Anyone who remotely follows tennis.

Well, I do so what you're saying just isn't true.

Well if you really did you'd understand the pressure/prestige/difficulty that comes with winning any of the four majors and no one would have to explain the setup of the event to you.

Nothing really compares, an Olympic gold - while a great result is not close to equivalent.

So to recap, a major consists of:

- Double the field
- Longer matches and more matches to win the tournament
- A two week event

Beowulf, is the 400m less signigicant than the 800m because it's shorter?

No offense Sgt, but really?

Yes, really. I still don't get how/why the tournament format makes the accomplishment and less. I mean, playing for country (and winning) is probably quite the thing, you know?

 

[bustaheims]

Sure, but that's still not really saying anything... What difference does that make if everyone is playing under the same rules?

Because the rules are different in the different styles of tournaments, and the rules in the Grand Slam tournaments make winning one a more difficult accomplishment, and, therefore, a more significant one in the world of tennis.

 

[bustaheims]

Why not? What if say, the Stanly Cup playoff series get moved to 5 games from 7? Do they become less significant to the athletes in the future because they are shorter?

Well, for starters, because of the massive difference between a race and a direct head to head competition like tennis. And, yes, I'd say, if all the series of the NHL playoffs were reduced to 5 games, winning the Cup would be a less significant accomplishment in comparison to the 7 game Cups, regardless of how the players involved feel. It's not about significance to the athletes, it's about significance to the sport.

 

[maplesyrup]

Sure, but that's still not really saying anything... What difference does that make if everyone is playing under the same rules?

Because the rules are different in the different styles of tournaments, and the rules in the Grand Slam tournaments make winning one a more difficult accomplishment, and, therefore, a more significant one in the world of tennis.

But there are 16 shots at those per 4 years compared to 1 shot at Olympic gold. That's a huge difference that can't be ignored.

 

[bustaheims]

But there are 16 shots at those per 4 years compared to 1 shot at Olympic gold. That's a huge difference that can't be ignored.

Sure, but all that really means is that there are less Olympic gold medallists, not that the accomplishment is any more significant in terms of what was done on the court. Murray is part of a short list of men who have won an Olympic gold. That's great and, yes, it's a significant accomplishment, but, it's still not on par with having won Wimbledon. Scarcity does not increase quality.

 

[maplesyrup]

Why not? What if say, the Stanly Cup playoff series get moved to 5 games from 7? Do they become less significant to the athletes in the future because they are shorter?

Well, for starters, because of the massive difference between a race and a direct head to head competition like tennis. And, yes, I'd say, if all the series of the NHL playoffs were reduced to 5 games, winning the Cup would be a less significant accomplishment in comparison to the 7 game Cups, regardless of how the players involved feel. It's not about significance to the athletes, it's about significance to the sport.

Well, this seems to be the fundamental difference in our philosophies. No point continuing when I'm focused on the individual and you're focused on the sport.

 

[Beowulf]

Sure, but that's still not really saying anything... What difference does that make if everyone is playing under the same rules?

Because the rules are different in the different styles of tournaments, and the rules in the Grand Slam tournaments make winning one a more difficult accomplishment, and, therefore, a more significant one in the world of tennis.

Couldn't really put it any better than this.

 

[bustaheims]

Well, this seems to be the fundamental difference in our philosophies. No point continuing when I'm focused on the individual and you're focused on the sport.

No one, other than you, has called the significance of the accomplishment to the individual into question. Beowulf and I have both been discussing the issue as it relates to the sport.

 

[maplesyrup]

Fair enough. Though it seemed (at least to me) you and Beowulf were calling the significance of the accomplishment to the individual into question and that's where I felt I needed to interject... and to that, I'm I hope someone asks him if he'd trade his gold for a Wimbelton title. My money is on "no."

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

The only thing that diminishes the accomplishment in the slightest is the 3 set matches makes it easier on the body.

As for the size of the field, it's actually about on par simply for the fact that a lot of scrubs make the early rounds of Slams, not the case in the Olympics.

It's been referred to as the fifth Slam by a host of top players.

Murray will win a slam, of this I am sure, but on a personal level, how many people will win Olympic gold in their home country after beating the best players in the world at the time?

Perhaps I'm not articulating it properly, but I think it's a case of while some might not view this tournament as significantly as a Slam, the prestige for the man is pretty much second to none.

 

[maplesyrup]

The only thing that diminishes the accomplishment in the slightest is the 3 set matches makes it easier on the body.

As for the size of the field, it's actually about on par simply for the fact that a lot of scrubs make the early rounds of Slams, not the case in the Olympics.

Murray will win a slam, of this I am sure, but on a personal level, how many people will win Olympic gold in their home country after beating the best players in the world at the time?

Perhaps I'm not articulating it properly, but I think it's a case of while some might not view this tournament as significantly as a Slam, the prestige for the man is pretty much second to none.

Yup. That's where I'm at.

 

[skippy]

Obviously its a big achievement, but I think that if Murray had the choice of winning Wimbledon last month or winning this, he'd take Wimbledon every time. And so would any tennis player.

 

[Kin]

Perhaps I'm not articulating it properly, but I think it's a case of while some might not view this tournament as significantly as a Slam, the prestige for the man is pretty much second to none.

But there's a fundamental difference between how an individual sees an accomplishment and a sort of dispassionate interpretation in the larger view of the sport. Someone who finishes in 5th place in the Olympics might view it as the greatest accomplishment of their lives and it would be pretty obnoxious for anyone to come along and disagree. Even if they didn't win a medal they're the fifth best in the world at something and while the pride they may feel in that accomplishment may be tempered by not finishing higher that's really up to them.

Conversely, if the person who wins a silver was a heavy gold medal favourite, and already had a bunch of gold medals, they might be less happy with what they did than the person who finished in fifth and, again, that's entirely up to them.

For us outsiders, however, there's a dry and dispassionate way to look at what the bigger accomplishment is or what has more significance to their sport. I'd never argue with how someone wants to view what they accomplished.

 

[Kin]

Have to say, it's pretty cool watching Usain Bolt run past other world class sprinters like he was Willie Mays Hayes during Spring Training.