Have you asked them yourself? I “bet” the opposite - there is at least one “top player” who plays solely for the money. I’ve even read about such people - they don’t give a rat’s ass about tennis, but they’re really good so they make much better money than what they could otherwise, and don’t have to worry about teammates letting them down. Are any of those “top players”? You didn’t define the term, but I would say 47th in the world is somewhat close.
Andre Agassi was also pretty well-documented to have hated tennis, so one would assume he was driven solely by the money, and accolades were not his target.
I read that book the day it came out and it is a fascinating book, but I do think Andre greatly exaggerated his hatred for tennis in order to boost sales. I’ve heard him say how much a fan he is of the sport now and while he made a lot of money, he also pushed his body past a reasonable point to continue to play until about age 36(or so). He had no need for money at that point, but kept going.
I get that he was mad about how his Dad forced him into it and how hard it was on his body, but I think he at least kind of likes tennis. I’ve heard him talk pretty passionately about Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal, for example.
I’ve heard this effect is especially prevalent in team sports. The bronze and gold medalists are happy because their last game was a win; the silver medalists ended with a loss.
Well in the scenarios given the money is better. Winning two GS titles in a year? The sponsors will let you name your price and if (as in your scenario) money is the only issue and they hate the sport then why wouldn’t they choose the method of earning most money with least tennis?
Well quite, and short of finding a dataset of athletes with piles of lower medals and no golds and surveying them, we are left just with opinion.
You may think my claim is hyperbolic but I think it is far, far closer to the truth than the (at best) 2:1 silver/gold worth expressed elsewhere in the thread.
That said, AFAICT winning one Grand Slam title while making it to the other three finals actually does more for one’s standings in the race to be the #1 player in the world than — well, winning two but failing to make it past the quarterfinals of the other two.
That may be but we weren’t talking about points (nor, originally, were we talking about money)
I don’t doubt that some metric can be found that can be used to rank various performance scenarios in multiple ways. I don’t think there is an objective method that can be used which is why I defer to the relative value that (I believe) the athletes themselves would put on Gold, Silver and Bronze.
Just catching back up on this thread to chime in that 1 championship or 1 major victory would be preferred by most athletes over an infinite number of 2nd place finishes. To be at the pinnacle of your sport, even for a short period, means something. For an athlete to rise to championship levels, it likely required a lifelong dedication to their sport. Being a follower of so many sports, I think this is somewhat obvious when you hear these athletes speak and assess the decisions that they make.
I acknowledge that the Olympics may be different. At some point in history, someone in Ancient Greece decided that 2nd and 3rd places have substantial value, so were also awarded medals. I imagine that, for Olympic sports athletes, a single bronze medal would be preferred over an infinite number of 4th place finishes. But gold is still gold, so the 5-3-1 scoring still seems to be the most correct when judging which country “won” the Olympics, with all the caveats that have been discussed in this thread.
I once attended a talk given by a Paralympian. He competed in a mixed-ability swimming relay event, and at their first Games the team came second. Two of the four were delighted to get a silver, and two were disappointed not to win the gold, and it was very obvious which was which in the video he showed us of the medal ceremony. (After this they had a discussion and made some changes as a team that allowed them to win gold at the next Paralympics.)
So it really does depend on the athlete and what their expectations are.
But, again, with that ranking, you’re effectively saying that (a) two bronzes are worth less than one silver, while also saying that (b) two silvers are worth more than one gold. And I can’t get on board with that.
Good point, but in reality for most, even 2 silvers are not equal to a single gold. How about 7-3-1? Or 13-4-1? The logical conclusion is that at some point, only gold matters and the values of the other 2 are further diminished.
I can only speak for myself, but: if I, like, met someone at a party, and found out she’d won two silver medals, I’d be impressed — and, honestly, I’d be as impressed upon meeting someone with one gold medal. I’ve thought it through, and, all else being equal, that just is how much two silver medals impress me: as much as one gold medal.
I can’t really break down the De Gustibus any further than that; but I can assure you that, in my case, it’s true, is all.
I think the discussion of the worth of Gold vs Silver to individual athletes is interesting, but in this case the context is country medal count. In the medal count totals, the distinction between Gold and Silver is much less critical. I think the scoring of 5/3/1 or some other choice is pretty good. Where would Bermuda rank on the list if they got a Silver instead of a Gold?
There’s always going to be an element of subjectivity, but if I were to decide, I would have a point system in which gold has, say, 3 points, silver has 2 points, and a bronze 1 point. I’d then factor in the amount of medalists relative to the number of competitors on their squad, as large countries have the capacity to add a greater number of athletes. Simultaneously, there ought to be a minimum number of competitors. Countries with a tiny contingent could conceivably win with one or two medalists.
So, applying this to the top 10 medal-earning countries right now, I’d have it something like this:
I think this is pretty clearly flat out wrong. As I mentioned earlier when someone suggested a similar idea, suppose the USA and China are both super strong in gymnastics and swimming, and both send full teams, and split all those golds. And then the USA also has the 7th best archer and 5th best fencer in the world, sends those two athletes, and they do not win medals. Somehow, that makes the USA a worse sporting nation than China, whose archers and fencers weren’t even good enough to qualify for the olympics? That seems pretty bonkers, frankly.
