Who had the better career: Rios or Gonzalez?

[Fr4Nc0]

I say Gonzalez. Rios may have been number 1 for a short period, but Gonzalez got at least to the quarterfinals of every grand slam (with a semifinal at RG and a final at AO). Rios only got to the quarters at the USO and RG, the fourth round at wimbledon and the final of the AO, where he got destroyed by the only top 15 player he had to face all tournament. In contrast, to get to the AO final, Gonzalez beat a young Del Potro, past champion Hewitt, then-world number 5 James Blake, then he OBLITERATED Nadal and Haas, and finally lost to Federer in a very tight three-setter where he held two set points in the first set.

On the other hand, Rios had 5 Masters titles, whereas Gonzalez lost the two masters series finals he disputed (to Federer in Madrid and to Nadal in Rome). Rios has 18 titles to Gonzalez's 11. Gonzalez is the only man in any sport to hold all three gold, silver and bronze olympic medals.

What do you guys think?

[Mustard]

Obviously Rios:

1997 Monte Carlo champion
1998 Indian Wells champion
1998 Miami champion
1998 Rome champion
1998 Grand Slam Cup champion
1999 Hamburg champion
6 weeks as world number 1

1998 Australian Open runner-up
1998 and 1999 French Open quarter finalist
1997 Wimbledon Round of 16 Loser
1997 US Open quarter finalist

Yes, Gonzalez may have got to the quarter finals of every major, but Rios' overall achievements are superior by some way. However, Gonzalez's beatings of Nadal and Haas at the 2007 Australian Open are performances that Rios never came close to at a major.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Fr4Nc0

Gonzalez is the only man in any sport to hold all three gold, silver and bronze olympic medals.

I don't think that is true.

[Fr4Nc0]

Originally Posted by woodrow1029

I don't think that is true.

you re right, its probably not true. lets change sport to "event" because im sure that some track people have, say, a gold medal in the 100m, a silver medal in the 200m and a bronze medal in the 400m.

[BigServer1]

I'd say Rios, based on the Masters titles and #1.

[Crisstti]

Ríos. He was number one, plus the masters titles, much bigger difference there with González than in their slam results, where the difference is rather marginal.
González sure made better use of what he had though.

[woodrow1029]

Originally Posted by Fr4Nc0

you re right, its probably not true. lets change sport to "event" because im sure that some track people have, say, a gold medal in the 100m, a silver medal in the 200m and a bronze medal in the 400m.

Gonzalez doesn't hold them all in the same event either.

[vive le beau jeu !]

2 great and entertaining players (but not with the same style !) who were bringing something special to the game... vamos chile !

their achievements are a bit complementary... only misses a win in a slam or a WTF !
of course, rios' results in masters-1000 are better, but i think this category of tournaments is a bit overhyped. anyway, being a former #1 is a strong point in his favour...

by the way, they have a similar record vs top-10 players (22-39 for rios, 27-50 for gonzalez), but i have the impression gonzo has a slightly more diverse scalp collection (having wins over sampras and federer must be a great satisfaction !).

Originally Posted by Mustard

However, Gonzalez's beatings of Nadal and Haas at the 2007 Australian Open are performances that Rios never came close to at a major.

agreed... the highlights of his demolition of the nadal is one of my favorite youtube tennis clips. i like to watch it from time to time...

[chrischris]

Rios.. 4sure.
Bigger talent , bigger titles. Period.

[Rock Strongo]

Rios may have had the better career (why didn't I ever see Rios play except for some few highlights? Am I really that young???) but based on the text in the parentheses Gonzalez was awesomer, or more awesome if you may.

[joeri888]

Rios was better. Bigger talent, bigger titles indeed.

However, Gonzalez will be a LOT more satisfied with his career. Worked hard, made the most of his limited game (decent movement, not great, decent serve, not great, very average backhand, awesome forehand). and won 3 olympic medals.

I think Gonzalez will look back on his career a happier man than Rios.

[hoosierbr]

In terms of accomplishments Rios has the bigger titles and was ranked number one. However, I think it's safe to say he underachieved given his immense talents.

Gonzalez, I think it can be safely said, overachieved through hard work and the willingness to listen and learn in order to improve as evidenced by his hiring of Larry Stefanki which led to the best results of his career.

Of the two Gonzo was certainly more well liked among his peers and tennis fans and seems an overall good guy. Rios, was and is, a jerk. It's too bad that age hasn't mellowed him but that's what makes him Marcelo.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Rios was better. Bigger talent, bigger titles indeed.

However, Gonzalez will be a LOT more satisfied with his career. Worked hard, made the most of his limited game (decent movement, not great, decent serve, not great, very average backhand, awesome forehand). and won 3 olympic medals.

I think Gonzalez will look back on his career a happier man than Rios.

Rios said in a Q&A a while back that he very satisfied with his career, and has no regrets, although he did say that he would have loved to have won a major.

But why would Gonzalez be more satisfied with his career than Rios is with his? Rios won 5 masters series titles, a Grand Slam Cup, and had 6 weeks as world number 1. Gonzalez doesn't have those big moments of winning big titles, or being world number 1. Gonzalez's best moments were his excellent wins over Nadal and Haas at the 2007 Australian Open, some other deep runs in majors, and reaching 2 masters series finals where Federer and Nadal beat him, which were the 2006 Madrid Indoor and 2007 Rome. Gonzalez's career high world ranking was number 5.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Rock Strongo

Rios may have had the better career (why didn't I ever see Rios play except for some few highlights? Am I really that young???) but based on the text in the parentheses Gonzalez was awesomer, or more awesome if you may.

What tournaments did you use to watch on TV between 1997-1999?

Originally Posted by hoosierbr

In terms of accomplishments Rios has the bigger titles and was ranked number one. However, I think it's safe to say he underachieved given his immense talents.

Gonzalez, I think it can be safely said, overachieved through hard work and the willingness to listen and learn in order to improve as evidenced by his hiring of Larry Stefanki which led to the best results of his career.

Of the two Gonzo was certainly more well liked among his peers and tennis fans and seems an overall good guy. Rios, was and is, a jerk. It's too bad that age hasn't mellowed him but that's what makes him Marcelo.

Rios is married to his third wife and they have 5 kids. He also has a daughter with his first wife, who plays tennis in the Under 12s. I think he has settled down, somewhat, in the last few years. Anyway, Rios is what he is. He's himself and won't change for anybody. Those who said after he became number 1 that he would have to change and start representing the sport well, were sorely disappointed. If anything, he became even more controversial as he dumped Larry Stefanki as his coach in favour of Nick Bollettieri, and split up with his girlfriend of 2 years. Rios certainly underachieved, though, I agree with you there. But to have done better would have required Rios to change his personality and be serious at all times, and he was never going to do that.

Gonzalez was also fiery and sometimes controversial (2008 Olympics against Blake), but also had a more easy going side to his personality.

[LeeD]

For you whom winnings is everything, Rios.
But for an artist and humanitarian, for sure Gonzo, for his forehand, if nothing else.
What will Rios be remembered by? His whining, his historionics, his tantrums and his 12 year old maturity.
Gonzo will be remembered as a sportman who maximized the ONE stroke every player says is their best.

[LeeD]

For you whom winnings is everything, Rios.
But for an artist and humanitarian, for sure Gonzo, for his forehand, if nothing else.
What will Rios be remembered by? His whining, his historionics, his tantrums and his 12 year old maturity.
Gonzo will be remembered as a sportman who maximized the ONE stroke every player says is their best.
Sometimes, for some people, ARTISTRY and integrity can win out.

[Mainad]

Rios certainly achieved more in his career. More and bigger titles, world #1 ranking. You can't argue against that.

Gonzalez was certainly the more likeable personality, though.

[achokshi99]

Originally Posted by LeeD

For you whom winnings is everything, Rios.
But for an artist and humanitarian, for sure Gonzo, for his forehand, if nothing else.
What will Rios be remembered by? His whining, his historionics, his tantrums and his 12 year old maturity.
Gonzo will be remembered as a sportman who maximized the ONE stroke every player says is their best.
Sometimes, for some people, ARTISTRY and integrity can win out.

Yeah Gonzo a great sportsman...he stole a medal from James Blake, demonstrated great integrity there.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But why would Gonzalez be more satisfied with his career than Rios is with his?

Maybe since Rios actually had the talent to win slams and he didnt. Gonzalez did well to achieve what he did, he was never some super talent.

It is like Anke Huber is probably more satisfied with her career than Steffi Graf. Yes Graf achieved much more, but her potential was far higher too.

[SoCal10s]

Pancho Gonzalez