I'd pick being #1 over being a one-slam wonder. The former can say that he was once the top-dog in tennis.
I’m not talking about your group of friends specifically, but it’s quite possible to play tennis and go to a tournament and not be a fan.You need to talk to people outside of TTW. I play tennis with a large group of people, many of whom have gone to the US Open at some point. Yet when I ask if they understand the difference between the FO and Rome, for example, almost none do.
Most people who know what tennis is like enough to care will assume you've won a slam at some point if you were the world #1. Even Wozniacki can make this case.If you are an ex-pro and people are introducing you at a dinner, would you like to be Michael Chang who gets introduced as the 1989 French Open champion or do you want to be Marcelo Rios where you get introduced as the former #1 player of the world? I think I would prefer the second introduction.
I don't think you can say you're the top dog if you didn't win ONE slam out of four, of course, many one-slam wonders weren't top dogs either. To be the top dog you need BOTH.I'd pick being #1 over being a one-slam wonder. The former can say that he was once the top-dog in tennis.
The question presented by this thread is not who is the better player it is “being #1 versus a slam.” And Gaudio upsetting Coria at the FO is arguably a more impressive singular achievement than anything Rios did.Gaudio obviously.
I think the prospect of losing to someone who'd just had a surgery was too intimidating. His deflecting remark about into Venus losing to a man three years earlier was pitiable. But to be fair, there weren't many #1s who were as poor and undeserving as him.Hingis would have ran him around in circles.