Those are no more than a tiebreakers.. Rank in terms of legacy Rafter, Kafelnikov, Muster and Chang..Timariot said:Not really. Whilst most fans seem to think regular Tour titles as meaningless, things like career high ranking, weeks as #1 etc are also very important.
Only to people who just look at numbers as a way to measure status and wealth. I'd put Marcelo Rios above all of them, simply on his amazing play and wide talent.ys said:Those are no more than a tiebreakers.. Rank in terms of legacy Rafter, Kafelnikov, Muster and Chang..
First and foremost anyone would say that Rafter&Kafelnikov>Muster&Chang.. Simply because 2>1. After that you can use those tiebreakers - like what kind of Slams they won, #1s, YECs, Davis Cups, titles, years in Top 10, doubles career, Olympics, etc. All of that will be hugely secondary after number of GSs won..
If only anyone would remember him in 5 years time.. :lol: Talking with Chilean fans at the Open was kind of funny "Fernando and Nicholas are wonderful players and the pride of Chile" "What about Marcelo?" "Marcelo? Marcelo? Ugh.. Ogh.. Oh yeah, yeah, Marcelo".. :lol:Domino said:Only to people who just look at numbers as a way to measure status and wealth. I'd put Marcelo Rios above all of them, simply on his amazing play and wide talent.
He won't be remembered at all, only by tennis fanatics.Tennis Fool said:Rios will also be remembered as a great player.
...which is bad because...?Jimnik said:In the modern game, it's the only fair way of creating a player's legacy because there's 1 grass, 2 hard and 1 clay slam. But the smaller tournaments are about 50% hard courts, 45% clay and 5% grass courts. So, if you count the number of weeks as world no.1 or the number of titles, you get the best hard and clay court players. Grass court players are at a disadvantage in terms of Masters Series titles and ranking points.
I don't recall anyone saying that Slams are not relevant or most important in creating tennis legacy. The poll isn't about that. The question is whether they are ONLY relevant thing - which they plainly are not, otherwise ppl would not bring out things like year-end #1, total number of titles, weeks as #1, h-2-h records, Olympic Gold medals in debates. Certainly, I think Rios is greater AND better remembered player than one-Slam wonders like Costa or Johansson.TheBoiledEgg said:you think he would have done that without winning slams