Do non-slam winners sometimes become more popular/iconic than slam winners?

[tank_job]

This is something I've been wondering about.

For example, Murray seems to be a tragic figure in the tennis world at the moment. If he continues to make many slam finals and never wins one, and Del-Potro never gets close to winning another slam, it could be the case that Murray is more remembered by general tennis fans (and otherwise), despite not being a slam champion even if that seems grossly unfair.

Another Brit from the 2000's, Tim Henman, is still very popular in his home country, and for chrissakes even has 'Henman Hill' which has a wikipedia entry. Henman Hill is talked about every year, thus, Henman is never really forgotten despite never winning anything.

By contrast, Slam champions from the 2000's such as Gaston Gaudio and Thomas Johansson seem to have slipped from the public memory completely, even though they should technically be remembered far more than Henman and Nalbandian and other perpetual losers.

Do you agree that some losers are remembered more than some champions? And why should that be the case? Are people just insane?

 

[forzamilan90]

it's cause he's British (same goes for Henman)

 

[JeMar]

I would argue that Henman had a better career than and Gaudio, but I'm not the type that thinks that winning the one major trumps EVERYTHING. One major is definitely important, but in the case of Gaudio, it was extremely "flukish." I loved watching Gaudio's backhand, but the guy didn't do anything major before winning RG and he didn't do anything after winning RG.

 

[Magnetite]

They do ..

Sometimes ..

But multiple slam winners, are generally more iconic, than non-slam winners.