PDA

View Full Version : something fed can't handle.....the pete sampras st. vincent ps 85 to 14 grand slams!


Young Pete
07-13-2007, 01:09 PM
i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

only sampras can handle such a racquet. SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

InvisibleSoul
07-13-2007, 01:28 PM
Not you or anyone else is going to be able to prove it, so the point is moot.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 01:37 PM
As InvisibleSoul pointed out, you can't prove it. Additionally, he used an 85 (leaded up) to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Bye, bye.

Young Pete
07-13-2007, 01:54 PM
As InvisibleSoul pointed out, you can't prove it. Additionally, he used an 85 (leaded up) to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Bye, bye.

that waz just once and it was close, and didn't henman spank fed after that win. what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

lolsmash
07-13-2007, 01:56 PM
And i bet Sampras can't win 11 slams with whatever racket Federer is using now. You think he can? Prove it.

laurie
07-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Don't you chaps get fed up of silly schoolboy threads?

pow
07-13-2007, 02:30 PM
i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

I'd like to see Sampras try to play with the APD. lol

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 02:33 PM
Could Pete win 14 majors with a woodie? Consult your illegal drugs to find out.

TheNatural
07-13-2007, 02:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

TheHuntor
07-13-2007, 02:35 PM
Don't you chaps get fed up of silly schoolboy threads?

ha nice pun.

Young Pete
07-13-2007, 02:44 PM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

GREAT POINT. they (fed fans) refuse to answer that question.

pro_staff
07-13-2007, 03:04 PM
The racket itself does not matter. Sampras played with whatever he played best with and Federer plays with whatever he plays best with.

Young Pete
07-13-2007, 03:10 PM
my point is sampras had to have superior talent to play with such a demanding racquet that even fed does not play with anymore. that my friends is what its all about.


The racket itself does not matter. Sampras played with whatever he played best with and Federer plays with whatever he plays best with.

Richie Rich
07-13-2007, 03:13 PM
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

probably around 7. but what do i know.

Chang
07-13-2007, 03:28 PM
It's not the racquet. It's how you use it. Any decent racquet used to its potential can be a very powerful weapon.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:31 PM
what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

How many of those are french open victories? Or better yet, how many times did he reach the final there with the 85??

NadalForever
07-13-2007, 03:44 PM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

prosealster
07-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Different raquet suits different style... that StV is demanding for some, but not for others...it was well suited to Pete's strokes and serve... he would have less success if he didnt lead up or use a 'less demanding' racquet like an APD...he would have won 0 slams..

prosealster
07-13-2007, 04:10 PM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

great post...you just showed us that this is a no brainer....S&V does take longer to mature.. hence you dont see it at kiddies level, which I imagine thats the level you are in... but once you get pass that..it's a very successful strategy...trust me... Given your example... Goran won 1 slam by S&V and Fed won 0...so does that mean he is greater than Fed???

slice bh compliment
07-13-2007, 04:16 PM
I do not think Pete played with a certain racquet because of the fact that it was demanding...or despite the fact that it was demanding.

Wilson Pro Staff....a very powerful, asskicking frame. Good for you, Pete.

I think he played with it because he felt most excellent with it. It was not some liability or disadvantage or handicap or anything. In fact, it was an asset for him. Why else would he play with it?

VGP
07-13-2007, 04:17 PM
that waz just once and it was close, and didn't henman spank fed after that win. what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

I think it's funny that Henman beating ("spanking") Federer after the Sampras match is the immediate follow-up. It can be used several ways.

- Federer was young and couldn't keep it up
- Federer got beat by a serve and volleyer
- Federer's not a pure serve and volleyer
- It was the old grass
- It was the old balls

....on and on.

The fact is that Federer suffered a groin injury during practice before the Henman match. Who knows what would have happened, especially with Sampras out of the draw.

In a way, I'm glad that Federer lost if not for being able to witness the Ivanisevic-Rafter final. A 128th ranked wild-card winning the title......priceless.

isuk@tennis
07-13-2007, 04:23 PM
I do not think Pete played with a certain racquet because of the fact that it was demanding...or despite the fact that it was demanding.

Wilson Pro Staff....a very powerful, asskicking frame. Good for you, Pete.

I think he played with it because he felt most excellent with it. It was not some liability or disadvantage or handicap or anything. In fact, it was an asset for him. Why else would he play with it?

seriously right?

there is a reason why he refused to play with any other frame throughout his career. it's not so it's harder for him to win but for him to continue to be able to win.

dave333
07-13-2007, 04:35 PM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

I guess nadal is an infant.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-13-2007, 05:27 PM
Another excellent thread... ;)

poplar
07-13-2007, 06:42 PM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

once again it shows that federer hater/nadal lover camp has a lot of sampras fans. but when u try to downplay federer, you downplay nadal ever more.

federer-all courter with ps90

nadal - baseliner with big racquet

poplar
07-13-2007, 06:43 PM
Another excellent thread... ;)

you'll never hear the end of it as federer is approaching pete's record slam titles.

quest01
07-13-2007, 06:49 PM
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Zimbo
07-13-2007, 06:50 PM
my point is sampras had to have superior talent to play with such a demanding racquet that even fed does not play with anymore. that my friends is what its all about.

I see your point but if Pete was playing now he wouldn't be using a PS 85.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-13-2007, 06:51 PM
you'll never hear the end of it as federer is approaching pete's record slam titles.

Let me see, I have seen the threads where his slams were not an actual slam because he received a walkover; there is no competition in his era, his inability to hit with a ps 85.

What’s next?

Federer was/is on steroids?

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-13-2007, 06:52 PM
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head side. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

That is a bold statement...

Eviscerator
07-13-2007, 07:03 PM
Is it amazing that Pete accomplished so much with his racquet? The answer is yes, but it is no more amazing than Connors winning all those tourneys with a tiny head T-2000, or Laver winning two Grand Slams with wood. Today Roger plays with an unforgiving racquet that many other pros would have trouble adjusting to, so it shows his immense talent as well.

Hot Sauce
07-13-2007, 07:08 PM
This is a thread where all the Nadal trolls and Sampras trolls come to form a coalition to troll against Federer. How very sad indeed.

NadalForever
07-13-2007, 07:10 PM
Let me see, I have seen the threads where his slams were not an actual slam because he received a walkover; there is no competition in his era, his inability to hit with a ps 85.

What’s next?

Federer was/is on steroids?

Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

Young Pete
07-13-2007, 07:19 PM
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

an even better point. pete could have won 20-25 grand slams if he ditched the ps 85 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO PETE!!!!!YOU ARE THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!

drakulie
07-13-2007, 07:24 PM
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Tell that to Jim Courier, Pierce, Evert who all won it with the same frame. he didn't win the French because his game was not built for baseline bashing.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 07:25 PM
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

.... and since nadal beat a "loser like Fed" on the way to his 3 FO victories those shouldn't count either.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-13-2007, 07:45 PM
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

I am sure Federer agree with you 1000%.....:roll:

Will you be saying the same thing if Nadal encounters the same thing?

NadalForever
07-13-2007, 07:53 PM
I am sure Federer agree with you 1000%.....:roll:

Will you be saying the same thing if Nadal encounters the same thing?

Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-13-2007, 07:54 PM
Alright, to each his own...

End of discussion.

Hot Sauce
07-13-2007, 08:03 PM
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

Last time anyone checked, Nadal has never won Wimbledon, Australian Open, or US Open and he is ranked 2nd, next to yours truly, Mr. Federer. Please do us all a favor and spare your completely biased trolling, and leave these forums permanently. Thanks.

Eviscerator
07-13-2007, 08:30 PM
Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.

:roll:

http://images.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/troll.gif

tHotGates
07-14-2007, 12:42 AM
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Actually, Pete has made recent comments to that effect ... almost lamenting of what could have been if he had instead used a larger head size for the FO.

War, Safin!
07-14-2007, 02:21 AM
i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

only sampras can handle such a racquet. SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You forget Sampras has a very flexible arm.
Strength is secondary.

kabob
07-14-2007, 02:21 AM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

You obviously weren't watching very closely. Federer won his first Wimbledon playing mostly serve & volley.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-14-2007, 05:55 AM
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

Ummm,

What is your ATP ranking?

drakulie
07-14-2007, 09:10 AM
Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.


I agree. Let's not forget slams are also "supposed to be" 5 sets per match. So anything less then playing 35 sets should not be counted. Additionally, every set has to go to a tie break in order to be counted. :roll:

rwn
07-16-2007, 07:52 AM
You obviously weren't watching very closely. Federer won his first Wimbledon playing mostly serve & volley.

He hasn't even watched Sampras closely. Sampras won 4 US Opens and 2 Australian Opens playing from the baseline. Peak Sampras (93-97) only served & volleyed on superfast grass and superfast carpet courts.
Sampras wouldn't serve & volley in the current slow conditions IMO.