PDA

View Full Version : Why do you think Sampras is so underappreciated?


laurie
03-03-2005, 11:10 AM
I really am surprised what I read here on the message boards. Now lets be honest, not everyone likes the same players. Thats true and fine with me. What I don't understand is that despite a player's achievements, some of the people on this message board try to make out that its all an illusion and somehow his level of ability is in question and he shouldn't have won even one tenth of the titles he did. Does disgust and dislike of a player run that deep to be in denial of his ability and achievements?

Whats the score on this as maybe someone can explain to me why this is the case. Or if it is the case, maybe I'm reading the situation wrong. I can't remember any other great player getting so much stick despite their ability and achievements.

Andy Hewitt
03-03-2005, 11:22 AM
Cuz he's greek. People hate Greeks, what can ya do?

I'm jus kiddin ;)

NoBadMojo
03-03-2005, 11:46 AM
IMO he is underappreciated because he is understated, thoughtful, uncontroversial, classy, and just let his racquet do the talking....he just didnt do a lot of jive talkin noise or feel the need to draw all the attention to himself...i think people thought the game just came easy to him becase he made it look so, but he worked as hard as most all the pros and was one of a the very few who could swing a racquet that heavy that fast...which i think caused it to look easy, but was also one of the reasons why he was so spent at the end of some of his matches. Stan Smith is/was also that way and was also underappreciated i feel...seems like the people who should be appreciated the most, are often appreciated the least.

Chadwixx
03-03-2005, 12:08 PM
his style.

no one wants to watch wimbledon on other surfaces, some dont even wanna watch wimbledon.

and he was a cry baby, how many times do we have to see him cry? if things are that bad dont step onto the court, very poor sportsmanship. that match with correja was pathetic, he took like 1 min between each pt just so he can wipe his tears, get ur *** off the court or play tennis.

he basically won wimbledon and got an easy draw at the open, to get his year end rankings.

i do like him for the tennis channel, i think him and agassi were the initial financial backers.

alfa164164
03-03-2005, 12:13 PM
I kinda thought he was overappreciated! One of the greatest short-point fast-court one-trick ponies ever. Basically a (better) fast court version of a Thomas Muster (who was equally one dimensional), who also had sporadic decent results on surfaces other than clay (Pete - Rome, Muster - Miami).
Ohh, and that quiet "class", Pete was like Lendl, he didn't lose often, but when he did, he wasn't necessarily the most gracious loser. When someone upset him, they were just "swinging for the fences, had nothing to lose, and were on that day - basically lucky" - but when Pete won using the same tactic (going for aces on 2nd serves, going for broke on groundstrokes because he didn't have the patience, consistency, or physical stamina to grind out a point) it was skill. Give me a break!
Is this enough to incite a riot among the Sampras faithful?

Rabbit
03-03-2005, 12:48 PM
I attribute the under appreciation to the passing of time. I didn't expect it to be this fast, but Sampras is a victim of not being in the limelight any more. I've already seen some of the same things written on these boards about Sampras that were written about Borg and Laver. 1) Competition not as good, 2) only a few players at the top any good, 3) the game has changed and he wouldn't translate well to it, and 4) he was nowhere near as talented as today's top players.

joehight
03-03-2005, 01:07 PM
His record speaks for itself. One of the top players ever to play the game. Some would say the best ever. Others would say in the top five ever. Certainly, for sure one of the top 10 ever. He was one helluva tennis player, but he wasn't an exciting personality, not a drop of charisma. And it looks as though he put everything he had into it while he was playing. Pretty well spent at the end. I couldn't believe the time he threw up on the court between change overs and still went on to win.

He certainly deserves to sit back, relax, spend time with the family and enjoy what he accomplished on the court.

I appreciate him, and wish he were still playing. But as a serve and volleyer, Patrick Rafter was more exciting.

Datacipher
03-03-2005, 02:13 PM
I think Rabbit has a good point.

The majority of the long term, knowledgable posters on this board have shown they respect Sampras. The others seem to fall into a couple of categories:

1.The newbs/young people, who either never saw Sampras or at least never in his prime. It takes time to develop perspective, young people always think that the best right now, must be by far the best ever. Some are already mature enough to acknowledge they didn't experience the past and are open minded and interested in it. Others are astonishingly ignorant and declare themselves to be experts! Even going so far as to declare that they have been watching tennis much longer than they have which becomes apparent upon careful reading of their posts. (occasionally I'll point this out, but often I let it go, lot's of fakers here and I'm sure many of you pick up on it)

2.The Sampras haters. For whatever reason a few individuals seem to have a strong anti-Sampras bias. This becomes apparent when they resort to comical and inane Sampras bashing reasoning. Of course they are entitled to hate Sampras if they like and it's moderately amusing to watch them attempt to rationalize their bashing.

It's somewhat ironic that I find myself defending Sampras in a few threads recently. During all those years, I was cheering for underdog Agassi in their classic encounters. While I always appreciated Sampras incredible talent from a player/coach perspective and would very much enjoy watching him from that perspective, I never really liked the guy much though I didn't really dislike him either. Nevertheless, he earned the accolades he gets.

Of course come to think of it, I didn't like Agassi either from ages 19-26ish. I liked him as a young brilliant 16-18yr old, for his talent. Then his punkish attitude rubbed me the wrong way, though I still marveled at his ground game and would watch anytime I could. It wasnt' until he started displaying the maturity of his later years that I came to respect him not only for his game but for his personality.

So, I think I've always seperated my appreciation of a player's game and my overall like/dislike of a player.

iscottius
03-03-2005, 03:48 PM
Pete Sampras is a great champion, but he is somewhat unlikeable....he was an understated champion, classy, etc. but if he felt underappreciated, he was a baby (davis cup), (everyone likes andre better), exciting on the court, paint drying off the court.

davey25
03-03-2005, 03:50 PM
I dont agree he is hated on. Just because some dont coronate him as the undisputed best ever, or bemoan how horrable the game has become now that he is gone, does not mean he is being hated on, or believing that Federer of last year could have challenged Sampras in his prime is not some sort of disregard for Petes greatness. Although I would expect Laurie to see how not taking that point of view translates into that.

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 04:15 PM
Very interesting comments, and I agree with most of them. I discount the one re Greeks (at first I thought it said Geeks, which I found a bit appropriate, but then I saw it related to Pete's national origin, which I didn't find quite as funny *lol*).

I never particularly enjoyed Pete's game, which always seemed to me to be all serve and nothing more (and far less exciting than Roddick's because at least, Andy shows emotion).

Pete never was a great returner, but it was nearly impossible to break that serve, even when he was down 0-40. And as a Pat Rafter fan, that frustrated me to no end. Can only imagine what it did to Pat Rafter.

But Pete was way more than a serve. We all know that. Can't amass the record he did without being a great all-court player, which he was. As time goes on, I appreciate him and his accomplishments more and more, whereas others seem to be doing the opposite.

And a lot of it is because of Roger Federer. Roger's game is more attractive than Pete's (at least in my opinion), and he's more charismatic than Pete ever was. And he's an international personality, who speaks several languages, and is someone the whole world can embrace. Whereas, even us Americans had trouble embracing Pete in his heyday.

Time will tell if Roger will surpass Pete's legacy. He has great talent, but he's a long way from finishing at No. 1 the same No. of years, letting alone the number of slam wins.

The excitement over Fed should continue, but it shouldn't erase or even tarnish what Pete has accomplished. That speaks for itself. Roger's racquet has to do a lot more talking before he can be mentioned in the same breath, in terms of history.

Grimjack
03-03-2005, 04:23 PM
I think it's because he spent so much of his career slouching around the court with his jaw slack, and his tongue lolling out. Sure, he dominated, but he looked vaguely mongoloid while doing it. It's hard to appreciate that a sport you've been playing your whole life at a club-player level has been mastered by a guy who just might have defective chromosomes.

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 04:28 PM
I think it's because he spent so much of his career slouching around the court with his jaw slack, and his tongue lolling out. Sure, he dominated, but he looked vaguely mongoloid while doing it. It's hard to appreciate that a sport you've been playing your whole life at a club-player level has been mastered by a guy who just might have defective chromosomes.

Yes, well, I'm sure that you have done much better, without those defective chromosomes.

So where have you earned your millions and international acclaim?

Anyone who makes this type of assinine analogy should be prepared to back it up.

I'd especially like to hear how you would explain to someone with Down's Syndrome how someone with Pete's accomplishments is considered unpopular because he displays Down's Syndrome tendencies?

Have you had any instruction in political correctness? Or even politeness?

Obviously not. And I'm going on that assumption.

Because I cannot believe that anyone in my own country is that unenlightened.

Grimjack
03-03-2005, 04:37 PM
Yes, well, I'm sure that you have done much better, without those defective chromosomes.

So where have you earned your millions and international acclaim?

Did you miss the part where I said he'd mastered the game, and we labour at the club level? Or was this just a willful suspension of literacy on your part?

No amount of success changes the fact that he was less than the image of DaVincian glory out there. It's an honest appraisal of a reason I think he lacks a certain amount of respect -- he never looked the part of a guy who deserved it. The public likes its idols to look the part. Pete looked more simian than man a lot of the time. Tough for a guy like that to earn the accolades of the masses, even while he's rolling the competition.

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 04:42 PM
Did you miss the part where I said he'd mastered the game, and we labour at the club level? Or was this just a willful suspension of literacy on your part?

No amount of success changes the fact that he was less than the image of DaVincian glory out there. It's an honest appraisal of a reason I think he lacks a certain amount of respect -- he never looked the part of a guy who deserved it. The public likes its idols to look the part. Pete looked more simian than man a lot of the time. Tough for a guy like that to earn the accolades of the masses, even while he's rolling the competition.

I didn't miss any of that.

This isn't about Pete.

It's about your politically incorrect and totally ignorant comments, as I noted above.

If you want to go ahead and delete them, I'm fine with that.

I'll adjust my comments accordingly.

No one with Down's Syndrome should be discussed in that manner, IMO.

Mongoloid???? You must be way older than me, because that term went out years ago.

NoBadMojo
03-03-2005, 04:45 PM
Sampras is respected and appropriately appreciated by almost all who really understand tennis IMO..for those who don't ,or are maybe of the 'Image is everything' ilk, I can see how Pete may not be so appealing.

Grimjack
03-03-2005, 04:48 PM
Anyone who makes this type of assinine analogy should be prepared to back it up.


Why in god's name should I have to "back up" an opinion on why the man might not be all that popular? It's not like there are stats for these things.

I'd especially like to hear how you would explain to someone with Down's Syndrome how someone with Pete's accomplishments is considered unpopular because he displays Down's Syndrome tendencies?

I wouldn't. What would be the point? To upset the Down's patient? Doesn't make the fact that most people would rather spend an afternoon flossing their toes than watch one play tennis any less true.

Have you had any instruction in political correctness?

Thank heavens, no. It's made the world a ridiculous place. Listen, PC or not, people don't flock to idolize guys who don't look like they have their faculties about them. Pete was an athletic marvel, who -- to the detriment of his international marketing appeal -- looked like a kid who spent too much time smoking pot and playing video games in his parents' basement, and whose basic facial control functions suffered for it.

Should he CARE about this? I don't see why he should, unless it's important to him why he wasn't adored by the public. The public loves a beautiful athlete. Pete was a glorious sad-sack.

All I'm offering is the suggestion that this may be part of why he doesn't receive accolades by the heap, post-retirement. Don't like it, get together a collection and send him to one of those poise schools for impending debutantes.

Tahsin1982
03-03-2005, 04:53 PM
I remember seeing the Road to AO where pete took on Jim Courrier. I cant remmeber which year but he had the news of his former coach who had brain tumor or something.

Can understand what he is going through but he should have been considerate cause he was crying through out the match and it was affecting Courriers match a lot and Courrier lost.

his style.

no one wants to watch wimbledon on other surfaces, some dont even wanna watch wimbledon.

and he was a cry baby, how many times do we have to see him cry? if things are that bad dont step onto the court, very poor sportsmanship. that match with correja was pathetic, he took like 1 min between each pt just so he can wipe his tears, get ur *** off the court or play tennis.

he basically won wimbledon and got an easy draw at the open, to get his year end rankings.

i do like him for the tennis channel, i think him and agassi were the initial financial backers.

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 05:00 PM
Why in god's name should I have to "back up" an opinion on why the man might not be all that popular? It's not like there are stats for these things.

I wouldn't. What would be the point? To upset the Down's patient? Doesn't make the fact that most people would rather spend an afternoon flossing their toes than watch one play tennis any less true.



Okay, you've convinced me. It's not worth the effort to convince you that you have insulted people less fortunate than you.

Because I know now they are more fortunate than you.

Just think of what players do at the Special Olympics; they work so hard, and fight so hard.

They aren't going to worry that some ignoramus here says negative things about them. Nor should they.

So I won't either. It only goes to credibility, in any event. And yours has dropped mightily.

Phil
03-03-2005, 05:04 PM
Did you miss the part where I said he'd mastered the game, and we labour at the club level? Or was this just a willful suspension of literacy on your part?

No amount of success changes the fact that he was less than the image of DaVincian glory out there. It's an honest appraisal of a reason I think he lacks a certain amount of respect -- he never looked the part of a guy who deserved it. The public likes its idols to look the part. Pete looked more simian than man a lot of the time. Tough for a guy like that to earn the accolades of the masses, even while he's rolling the competition.

I thought your first post was a joke, and I was just about to nudge Susan to lighten up and then I read your second post...I guess you're serious. You're also an idiot. If I want to see GQ models play tennis, then I guess I can go to Fire Island and watch them prance around there, or maybe you can make a recommendation based on your experience, though I probably will decline. Otherwise, who cares how he looked on court? The results were there-it isn't a friggin' fashion show (not for knowledgable tennis fans, at least). Roger looks like he doesn't even need a shower after a match, Pete looked a more frazzled...again, so what-different styles.

And Susan...the Greek comment WAS a joke-the guy actually said that at the end of his post (you know, the "just kidding" part?).

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 05:08 PM
Phil, I added a *lol* in that thread -- I also was trying to make a Geek/Greek joke. I got derailed with the other stuff, which I don't consider a laughing matter.

And many of you, when you get older and are in a situation where a child you are about to bear has this or another type of hereditary condition, will also see this. (This hasn't happened to me personally, but it's hit close enough.)

I've considered asking Don or Chris delete the references to mongoloid and defective chromosomes and such.

They are very offensive, IMO.

But I assume they'll view the thread and make their own decision.

Aykhan Mammadov
03-03-2005, 05:15 PM
Why is he underappreciated ? I don't think so, he is 14 times GS champion and one of the greatest ever. Here at forum it is possible.

But I think despite he was GREAT in tennis, probably he wasn't bright figure as a man. Peoples always like and remember bright figures. Say Agassi with his ear-ring, bald-headed and with his strange steps is somebody retained in memory. The same is Kuerten say, or McEnroe.

To my wish Federer with his brilliant tennis is not bright as if he doesn't have temperament inside.

Grimjack
03-03-2005, 05:52 PM
In the spirit of peace, harmony, and good will among men of all races, sexual orientations, and genetic makeups, I humbly withdraw my comments. Which is to say, I disavow my belief in them, and will pursue them no further. I'm not deleting them, as surely some future cyber-archaeologist will want to come along and marvel at their ghastliness for himself.

I am an **** (edit: think lower end of the colon) among men, and deserving of grief and misfortune.

I cheerfully concede that my comments are asinine, and perhaps even assinine, though that be a grievous spelling error and probably in some way a violation of the user agreement.

I withdraw my assertion that physical appearance means anything w/r/t fandom, and slink back to my woeful life, leaving you to continue your entirely virtuous crusade as cheerleader-in-chief for boytoy Latino heart-throb Rafael Nadal, which I'm certain you would have undertaken even if he suffered from poor posture, and presented himself slack-jawed and mongoloid with unfortunate unibrow tendencies. Right?

XOXO,

Grim

VamosRafa
03-03-2005, 06:09 PM
In the spirit of peace, harmony, and good will among men of all races, sexual orientations, and genetic makeups, I humbly withdraw my comments. Which is to say, I disavow my belief in them, and will pursue them no further. I'm not deleting them, as surely some future cyber-archaeologist will want to come along and marvel at their ghastliness for himself.

I am an **** (edit: think lower end of the colon) among men, and deserving of grief and misfortune.

I cheerfully concede that my comments are asinine, and perhaps even assinine, though that be a grievous spelling error and probably in some way a violation of the user agreement.

I withdraw my assertion that physical appearance means anything w/r/t fandom, and slink back to my woeful life, leaving you to continue your entirely virtuous crusade as cheerleader-in-chief for boytoy Latino heart-throb Rafael Nadal, which I'm certain you would have undertaken even if he suffered from poor posture, and presented himself slack-jawed and mongoloid with unfortunate unibrow tendencies. Right?

XOXO,

Grim

I accept your not-so-humble apology. Although it should not be made toward me, or even toward Rafael, who is genetically gifted.

It should be made toward the people who are not so gifted. And I'm not talking about us average joes and janes who can't do that much with a tennis racquet, but do our best.

I'm talking about people who struggle to make a normal life for themselves, and who succeed because of sheer will. They may not be perfect, but they look so in comparison to many of us. And certainly in comparison to you.

You may not have those physical infirmities, but you may have some others. And my spelling of assinine was intentional, Webster's notwithstanding.

I sit on a board for a non-profit organization that works with and places people with these types of challenges, and I see what they accomplish on a daily basis. They may not win tennis tournaments, but they are impressive in their own right. And several of them are board members themselves.

And thank goodness. it's nice to sit on a board with people who are reasonable and who are remarkably unprejudiced toward people who don't have the same issues they have.

nkhera1
03-03-2005, 06:18 PM
Because he is retired and has stayed out of the news since retiring. This happens to many great sports starts once they retire, for example just look at Michael Jordan. For a one dimensional guy his 1 dimension must have been pretty good in order to keep him number 1 for so long.

Bertchel Banks
03-03-2005, 06:57 PM
Because the pundits demanded we appreciate him NOW for once he retired the tour wouldn't see such a talent for a good 20-30 years, if ever again.

He was a bore who did an excellent job in choking the life out of the game as a respectable spectator sport.

Thank God for Andre and Roger Federer who demonstate that you can dominate, entertain, and inspire at the same time. That tennis is more than just a big serve, a ten pound racket, and a spinach-injested Popeye-esque forearm to wield it.

radical tourist
03-03-2005, 07:31 PM
Amazing. He either has no emotion or he's too emotional, according to you guys. Because he keeps his emotions in check to win and because his coach just died. Good grief, folks. Underappreciated cause he didn't spend time being self-important. One dimensional game? You didn't see him serve and volley in his prime. You want multi-dimensional entertaining tennis? Watch some of the #40 and lower women's doubles. For entertainment, it beats the men's and women's singles game these days. Everyone since Sampras has been annointed here at one time or another as the next hot thing - Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Kuertin. They have yet to prove it. At least two of them have no chance of ever proving it. To pile up the record Sampras amassed over the years, stay healthy, win even though everyone was gunning for him? To conclude that his opponents were bad because he won so much? To take one match or one tournament by one current player and say that's proof he is better than Sampras? We're talking Roy-Hobbs-as-The-Natural movie stuff here. It makes a career unimportant. It makes even playing the game irrelevant if you look at one match or one tournament or one season and say 'best ever.' All wonderful fun and fodder for discussion but basically just pffffffffffffftt!

nkhera1
03-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Amazing. He either has no emotion or he's too emotional, according to you guys. Because he keeps his emotions in check to win and because his coach just died. Good grief, folks. Underappreciated cause he didn't spend time being self-important. One dimensional game? You didn't see him serve and volley in his prime. You want multi-dimensional entertaining tennis? Watch some of the #40 and lower women's doubles. For entertainment, it beats the men's and women's singles game these days. Everyone since Sampras has been annointed here at one time or another as the next hot thing - Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Kuertin. They have yet to prove it. At least two of them have no chance of ever proving it. To pile up the record Sampras amassed over the years, stay healthy, win even though everyone was gunning for him? To conclude that his opponents were bad because he won so much? To take one match or one tournament by one current player and say that's proof he is better than Sampras? We're talking Roy-Hobbs-as-The-Natural movie stuff here. It makes a career unimportant. It makes even playing the game irrelevant if you look at one match or one tournament or one season and say 'best ever.' All wonderful fun and fodder for discussion but basically just pffffffffffffftt!

Like I said, he must have had one heck of a dimension.

Young Pete
03-03-2005, 11:36 PM
Sampras is underappreciated because he simply played the GAME. He could have been more popular but he chose to play the game with class and grace, just like his idol, Laver. He was all business on the court, and, on top of his domination to the sport, he dated two beautiful actresses. Sampras acted with class like a true gentleman on and off court. I admire his dedication to the game. The competition was always Laver, the place, Wimbledon. He did not care about the negative opinions about him. He knew he was the best, and he proved it. I believe Sampras being an introvert actually helped him focus on whats important, 14 grand slams.

At times Sampras might have looked lazy or boring, but hey, if you've dominated the game for so long, you have nothing else to prove. You are a "player". You just let the racquet do the talking. I respect Sampras for his contribution to the court. He is a true champion.

Datacipher
03-03-2005, 11:57 PM
I never particularly enjoyed Pete's game, which always seemed to me to be all serve and nothing more (and far less exciting than Roddick's because at least, Andy shows emotion).
.

and you wonder why I say you know nothing about the game.

Datacipher
03-03-2005, 11:58 PM
And a lot of it is because of Roger Federer. Roger's game is more attractive than Pete's (at least in my opinion), and he's more charismatic than Pete ever was. And he's an international personality, who speaks several languages, and is someone the whole world can embrace. Whereas, even us Americans had trouble embracing Pete in his heyday.

Time will tell if Roger will surpass Pete's legacy. He has great talent, but he's a long way from finishing at No. 1 the same No. of years, letting alone the number of slam wins.

The excitement over Fed should continue, but it shouldn't erase or even tarnish what Pete has accomplished. That speaks for itself. Roger's racquet has to do a lot more talking before he can be mentioned in the same breath, in terms of history.

That's funny because a few months ago you were chastizing people for talking about Federer too much.

Datacipher
03-04-2005, 12:00 AM
I've considered asking Don or Chris delete the references to mongoloid and defective chromosomes and such.

They are very offensive, IMO.

But I assume they'll view the thread and make their own decision.

Give me a break!

sarpmas
03-04-2005, 12:15 AM
I can understand why people do not appreciate Sampras because of his TENNIS, be it style, strokes whatever, but to underappreciate him because of how he looked and how he lacked emotion?! I think it is really ridiculous. I believed a truly knowledgeable tennis fan will not discredit Sampras this way. I supposed Borg or Lendl should also be underappreciated?

35ft6
03-04-2005, 12:42 AM
Lendl is grossly underappreciated.

Without hesitation, I put Sampras in the top 3 of all time. But for me there's a huge *** asterik next to his claim of GOAT because of 7 Wimbledons, 0 French Opens. To me, that's important. Greatest fast court player of all time? Undoubtably.

On his best day and on Federer's best day, who would win? I would say Federer's uncanny ability to read big serves would neutralize Sampras' biggest weapon, so Roger wins 4 out of 5 times even on grass.

As far as his on court personality, can he be faulted? Other athletes do, so why not him? I give credit people for being true for being himself, but that's not really a virtue in and of itself. If a person is an butthole, I would give him more credit for trying to develop a new "himself." Sampras said he let his racket do the talking but I personally think he owed the sport more than that, as all athletes do. His personality sucked! He was a baby. He's like the guy who pouts and refuses to dance with his wife because he feels uncomfortable doing it. I give way more credit to the person who compromises and is willing to step outside of his comfort zone for the greater good. It was immature of him to crawl ever deeper into his shell as people criticized him for being inaccessible. That's how a child acts. At some point, you have to grow up and realize that just because it comes naturally to you, and it's comfortable, it doesn't mean it's good. But this is only why I was never crazy about him as a person. As far as his tennis goes, I will be equally critical of Federer if he wins 14 or 15 Slams, but none on clay.

VamosRafa
03-04-2005, 12:52 AM
Give me a break!

No, I'm not giving you or anyone else one in this particular instance, re the specific issue I've mentioned above.

I'm off to Carson, but trust me, I won't give you one from there either.

The hotel has free wireless internet.

VamosRafa
03-04-2005, 01:03 AM
That's funny because a few months ago you were chastizing people for talking about Federer too much.

Got that wrong. I think it was you who said I was talking about Nadal too much.

In any event, I never said folks were talking too much about Fed. I said they were canonizing him too much. There is a difference.

And my comments then are consistent with my comments above.

Pete will be canonized before Rogi, IMO, in terms of tennis, of course.

Young Pete
03-04-2005, 01:11 AM
Lendl is grossly underappreciated.

Without hesitation, I put Sampras in the top 3 of all time. But for me there's a huge *** asterik next to his claim of GOAT because of 7 Wimbledons, 0 French Opens. To me, that's important. Greatest fast court player of all time? Undoubtably.

On his best day and on Federer's best day, who would win? I would say Federer's uncanny ability to read big serves would neutralize Sampras' biggest weapon, so Roger wins 4 out of 5 times even on grass.

As far as his on court personality, can he be faulted? Other athletes do, so why not him? I give credit people for being true for being himself, but that's not really a virtue in and of itself. If a person is an butthole, I would give him more credit for trying to develop a new "himself." Sampras said he let his racket do the talking but I personally think he owed the sport more than that, as all athletes do. His personality sucked! He was a baby. He's like the guy who pouts and refuses to dance with his wife because he feels uncomfortable doing it. I give way more credit to the person who compromises and is willing to step outside of his comfort zone for the greater good. It was immature of him to crawl ever deeper into his shell as people criticized him for being inaccessible. That's how a child acts. At some point, you have to grow up and realize that just because it comes naturally to you, and it's comfortable, it doesn't mean it's good. But this is only why I was never crazy about him as a person. As far as his tennis goes, I will be equally critical of Federer if he wins 14 or 15 Slams, but none on clay.

Why do u think Sampras owes more to the game? He gave his blood sweat and tears to dominate the sport while keeping a low profile. I personally think that is an excellent characteristic in an athlete..low key... If a person is dominating the sport, why change? Goes to show some fans demand MORE from a player than just playing the game.

VamosRafa
03-04-2005, 01:15 AM
See below for my messsage, as I did a double post my mistake. Sorry.

VamosRafa
03-04-2005, 01:16 AM
and you wonder why I say you know nothing about the game.

If you are going to quote me for my lack of knowledge, please post my whole quote, and not just the bit that you think supports your point.

After that particular quote I said:

Pete never was a great returner, but it was nearly impossible to break that serve, even when he was down 0-40. And as a Pat Rafter fan, that frustrated me to no end. Can only imagine what it did to Pat Rafter.

But Pete was way more than a serve. We all know that. Can't amass the record he did without being a great all-court player, which he was. As time goes on, I appreciate him and his accomplishments more and more, whereas others seem to be doing the opposite.

The last paragraph was why I posted in this thread to begin with. I actually thought this would be a non-controversial sort of thread, at least with respect to me.

Guess not.

The only real issue I have though is what I said above. Those insults are beyond the pale, IMO, and they weren't directed at me.

As for the ones against me. No worries.

I'll deal with them from Carson, if I have time to check in.

Go USA!!!!!!

35ft6
03-04-2005, 03:19 AM
First off, in now way do I equate Sampras' "transgressions" to that of real problems/evils in the world. Why do u think Sampras owes more to the game? He gave his blood sweat and tears to dominate the sport while keeping a low profile. I think he could have done more in the same way that I think it wouldn't kill an actor or rock star to stop and take a picture or sign an autograph for a fan. Sure, they don't have to. I understand they're only human and they need a private life, too, and they don't want to be bothered all the time. Still, the fans are the reason why Sampras made tens of millions of dollars. Without fans, there is no ATP. One can argue that playing excellent tennis is enough, but dammit I love tennis and I don't think it gets enough respect and coverage in the USA. A part of me will never forgive Sampras for not doing more to make tennis popular in the USA.

You can certainly argue that that's the way Sampras was, that he couldn't change... you could also say that maybe that's why he was so successful, because he didn't divert any precious energy to being a good ambassador for the sport... but to me there's something distasteful, arrogant about an actor, musician, or sportsman (sports is entertainment... improvised theater...) not showing proper gratitude to the fans who make their privileged existence possible.

And, again, I can't help but feel ESPN and the networks would provide better tennis coverage if Sampras had tried harder to project a likable personality. Simply playing good tennis is preaching to the choir. A tennis fan will fully comprehend and appreciate Sampras' game. But to attract new fans, in order to convert the non-believer, you need personality. Sports is character driven, just like a decent movie. Great personalities transcend technique. e.g. I'm not going to watch the Tour de France to watch a guy pedal, but I WILL tune in to see Lance Armstrong.I personally think that is an excellent characteristic in an athlete..low key... If a person is dominating the sport, why change? To increase the popularity and help insure the future relevance, survival of the sport he claims to care about.Goes to show some fans demand MORE from a player than just playing the game. In general, I probably demand more from people period. With great power comes great responsibility as a dead uncle once said. I think Sampras dropped the ball. But I think he's going to realize how much tennis has given him and will someday try to make up for all the years he took the fans and game for granted. Like a father who had to be maniacally driven in order to become CEO, who suddenly realizes one day that he's been neglecting his wife and kids, the very people who supported him as he sprinted towards success.

Whatever. This ain't no big thing at all. I think Sampras is a bit of a boor.

laurie
03-04-2005, 03:20 AM
Davey, somehow I would expect you to misread my post and make fabricated speculations. That doesn't phase me though. If you read some of the posts on this thread you will see that people have all sorts of opinions on Sampras, some favourable and some not very favourable at all. However, his achievements are there for all to see.

So what does this statement "Although I would expect Laurie to see how not taking that point of view translates into that." got to do with other poeple's opinions or likes and dislikes. Am I speaking for everyone on the message borad? Of course not. Am I allowed to have an opinion? Of course. Do you have a problem with that? I hope not.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 07:13 AM
talk about asterisks..i think there shoud be an asterisk next to the French that sez ----> "Borderline Major" it's often won by people who never win much again or only those who can win on the slowest of red clay courts and not even on the Har-Tru, not that there are mens Har-tru events much anynore, and clay isnt even that relevant of a surface on the mens tour these days. The NASDAQ is more of a majour than the French IMO. I think they should switch that to HarTru and declare it a Major replacing the French Open not that it would happen. all the other surfaces have become more winnable by non specialists especially Wimbledon where the higher bounding truer bouncing ball can allow even a Nalbandian to win..my .o2

Kobble
03-04-2005, 10:32 AM
Sampras is thought to be underappreciated because he was selfish, and appeared it. You don't get a following contributing to yourself all the time. Pete seemed to be all about himself, and the hell with everyone else. Federer is much of the same. On the other hand, guys like Safin and Muster lend themselves to you on the court. It seems like it would be a lot more fun to be them, than a Sampras or Federer.

Camilio Pascual
03-04-2005, 10:40 AM
talk about asterisks..i think there shoud be an asterisk next to the French that sez ----> "Borderline Major" it's often won by people who never win much again...and clay isnt even that relevant of a surface on the mens tour these days.

Hmmmm. I wonder how many points are at stake on clay as opposed to grass on the ATP tour? I also wonder where all those Spaniards and Argentinians are playing tennis. If it is not on clay, then clay must be a great surface to train on for playing on hard courts.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 10:51 AM
my point Camilio is look who wins the French, then look who wins the other Majors. as far as Sampras being incomplete, other immortals and legends in tennis <and golf> are missing a Majour....that desnt make them less great and it seems the French is becoming less impt these days for a number of reasons anyway....so someone with all 4 majors and a total of 4 majors would be considered better than Samps? how does this work? The French is def the low tourney on the totem pole amongst the majours by most peoples perception, and is won by specialty type players in many cases.

troytennisbum
03-04-2005, 11:01 AM
Now that is an interesting question mentioned above....who would win on their best day...Sampras or Federer ?????

I would say Federer would....most of the time.

TS Ramesh
03-04-2005, 11:33 AM
I think NoBadMojo has a point there, at least to the extent that Roland Garros has historically had a bigger percentage of one-slam wonders who were basically clay court specialists pretty much incapable of winning anything else. Wimbledon, on the other hand, despite being part of an extremely short grass court season, has predominantly had champions who won Slams on other surfaces besides grass. In the last 30 years, Wimbledon has had 4 one-trick ponies (Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich and Cash), while Roland Garros has had almost 3 times as many (Gaudio, Ferrero, Costa, Kuerten, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Gomes, Chang, Noah, Panatta). And before somebody beats up on me about Kuerten and Bruguera, my definition of "one-trick pony" is somebody who never won a slam on any other surface.
--Ramesh

Datacipher
03-04-2005, 11:42 AM
Got that wrong. I think it was you who said I was talking about Nadal too much.
.

When did I say that Susan?

joehight
03-04-2005, 11:45 AM
Can anyone help me out? What is the little triangle that appears in so many posts? When you put your cursor on it, you get the message "report bad post" or something to that effect. Has the post been reported as "bad" to TW, or has the author of the post making a judgement about the post, and if so where are they getting access to the sybol?

drexeler
03-04-2005, 12:06 PM
Sampras is thought to be underappreciated because he was selfish, and appeared it. You don't get a following contributing to yourself all the time. Pete seemed to be all about himself, and the hell with everyone else. Federer is much of the same. On the other hand, guys like Safin and Muster lend themselves to you on the court. It seems like it would be a lot more fun to be them, than a Sampras or Federer.

But Federer IS being appreciated. It is hard to think of many players that have generated that much excitement in the tennis world - commentators, writers, former players (some real old-timers), current players and fans. They speak of his game in glowing terms (compare it to art and poetry) and make comments like they would pay to watch him practice.

On the other hand, Pete has been underappreciated relative to his achievements. Part of it, I think is his being a contemporary of the charismatic, fan-favorite Agassi who took away the limelight from Pete. Another reason is the unfair characterization of him as a serve-dependant player, whereas in reality, he had all the complete all-round skills including fleet (underrated) movement and classical strokes. This unfair assumption was behind the grumblings you would hear, esp. after his Wim duels with Goran, that men's tennis has been taken over by power and killed the artistry. (I believe these grumblings would have grown even louder if somebody like Roddick, J. Johansson or even Safin were dominating currently instead of Federer.)

On another note, everybody criticizes players like Sampras for lack of charisma but fan favorites like Tiger Woods, Joe Montana were just as, if not more, wooden.

Brettolius
03-04-2005, 12:34 PM
hey joe, where you goin' with that gun in you're hand?
sorry. the triangle i believe is next to everyone's name, and it appears to me that if you find a post way out of line, you would click the triangle on the post, reporting in effect the objectionable post to the moderators, so then they deal with it fittingly.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 12:39 PM
he's goin' to shoot his old lady Brettolius.......................

joehight
03-04-2005, 12:56 PM
hey joe, where you goin' with that gun in you're hand?
sorry. the triangle i believe is next to everyone's name, and it appears to me that if you find a post way out of line, you would click the triangle on the post, reporting in effect the objectionable post to the moderators, so then they deal with it fittingly.

Thanks. That helps some. I guess I am showing my naivitee at this posting business. But I don't see any triangle next to my name anywhere. And some posters appear to be using this triangle very liberally. Many of the posts it appears on don't seem to me to be "way of of line." But I guess that is a matter of opining IMHO - doesn't that stand for in my humble opinion?

Brettolius
03-04-2005, 01:37 PM
you can't see it by your own name because you aren't going to report yourself are you? i believe it is by everyones name. every post. it's there on every one, so if it is objectionable, you click on the triangle and it allows you to report. just because it is visible (which it is on every post besides yours when you're logged in) doesn't mean that every post is reported, if you see what i mean. log out and check the board out as a guest, and you will see the triangle by your name too.

oh yeah, and ed, what's the deal with your post count? no way have i posted here more than you. ..."caught her messin' 'round with another man, and that ain't too cool..."

Camilio Pascual
03-04-2005, 01:41 PM
NBM - Here is why I don't think you have established the irrelevancy of clay, especially compared to grass, on the men's tour, at least in 2004:

6 tournaments on grass, 1 with prize money of $800,000 or more.
23 tournaments on clay, 7 with prize money of $800,000 or more.
33 tournaments on hard, 12 with prize money of $800,000 or more.

Because of scheduling, it is also not possible to participate in more than 4 grass tournaments. The above is also the reason I crack up whenever I see the phrase "clay court specialist." I really don't think people in the U.S. realize how important a surface clay is.

Brettolius
03-04-2005, 01:43 PM
it is an important surface, it just doesn't translate well to the other surfaces.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 01:53 PM
camilio ..i understand that there is alot more clay action globally, but it seems to me there are a number of players who can pretty much only win on clay, but the truly best can win on more than clay...i dont know how many clay events Sampras one..probably not that many, but he didnt play that part of the world on the euro clay season..plus there is bifurcation of the tour w. events often on clay going on in multiple locations all over the world..i hear what your saying....it is pretty shortsighted of americans, including me, to negate the clay court tourneys because we no longer have many/any for the men in the US, but i think the relevance of the post is whether Sampras is any less a champion because he never won the French, and I say nope, and for the reasons previously stated, and i really do think the French Open is the marginal majour..the French Open is only revered by the French and perhaps a clay court specialist who can only win on slow terra batu..i thnk in fairness they should speed up the clay at the French and make it so the truly best can win it, rather than it be a battle of who gets bored and goes for the winner first..even stodgy old Wimbledon modified their grass to make it play like a hardcourt, perhaps in part because of the whiney dirtballers who wouldnt play on the grass because they dont know how

Camilio Pascual
03-04-2005, 02:19 PM
NBM - I prefer Har-Tru, which is faster than most red clay. I haven't really posted anything here about Sampras, your comment about clay's relevancy is what flushed me out into this thread. I messed with you a little bit, 2 of the grass tournaments had prize money of $791,750, but, hey, I did the research, I get to massage the statistics! LOL
Arguing about the men's game v. the women's game (which I did yesterday) or which surface is better is pretty much like arguing about which flavor is better, vanilla or chocolate. It's a matter of personal taste and the answer is strawberry, anyway.
As far as Sampras goes, I think the fact that 7 of his Majors were on grass, considered by many as an irrelevant surface, and the contrast to the very extroverted character of Agassi are the 2 major reasons he is seen to be underappreciated. I once posted here some years ago I thought he was the greatest ever, even though I think grass is totally irrelevant outside of the pro game. Then you guys here made me think too much and I don't know what to think comparing him to Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, and other greats from 1960 on. Have a good weekend.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 02:39 PM
camilio it's all in fun, but i think it common knowledge that the best 'athletes' and best players often win on <traditional> grass so i dont consider it irrelevant in that sense..as to clay where it is often just a matter of endurance, in which case why not just watch a boring triathalon instead...:O i agree re the HarTru..i am lucky enough to play on it and teach on it and my body thanks me each and every day, plus it is a fair surface which receives most styles of play....dont get me started on why no serve/volley anymore ! i think Samps is GOAT, and surpasses Laver alot..if you've ever seen Laver play, you would know that while he was a great closer like Samps, he could go off on a walkabout and was much much less consistent than Sampras...unforced errors in general were much greater back then.

Kobble
03-04-2005, 03:50 PM
But Federer IS being appreciated

I am not going to take away from Federers game, because he does hit some sensational shots at times. However, when I see all the praise of Federer it makes me wonder if the tennis community thought they underpalyed Pete too much, and now they have learned their lesson. Although, Federer's style of play makes it easier to talk about him. What I mean't by my comment was that Federer might also be a forgotten champion as well. My reasoning for it is because tennis is a young persons sport, unlike golf, so much of the marketing is towards kids. As we all know, most kids could care less about yesterday's greats, and the media seems to put their legacy on the back burner. It is just us "old" people who care, for whatever reason. Your also right about Agassi, at one point I thought Agassi was the number one player due to all the hype that he recieved.

AAAA
03-04-2005, 05:24 PM
I once posted here some years ago I thought he was the greatest ever, even though I think grass is totally irrelevant outside of the pro game. Then you guys here made me think too much and I don't know what to think comparing him to Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, and other greats from 1960 on. Have a good weekend.

At least you have an open mind unlike the huge majority.

AAAA
03-04-2005, 06:19 PM
A player that wins slams on grass, hardcourts and clay has shown their game is effective enough to win slams on all the available slam surfaces. A player that can't win slams on every available slam surface is a player whose effectiveness is restricted to certain surfaces that just happen to suite their usual style of play.

Bertchel Banks
03-04-2005, 07:08 PM
AAAA speaks truth.

All this talk about Pete being low key and classy is utter BS. Pete is a Leo, and Leo's L-O-V-E attention and admiration. The more praise you give them, the more they want. Sampras wanted to break the GS record so that he'll always be talked about, and now Federer (another leo) want to break that record so his name shines brightest.

Pete loathed Andre because he felt all the praise, attention and money Agassi got should've gone to him. What he fails to see is that his personality is boring, and his game wasn't fan friendly.

Sampras was literally losing his hair to get into the limelight.

NoBadMojo
03-04-2005, 09:57 PM
anyone who talks poorly of samps is truly clueless. what more is that you would want? ridiculous..not even a topic for conversation.

SydW
03-04-2005, 10:25 PM
I am not going to take away from Federers game, because he does hit some sensational shots at times. However, when I see all the praise of Federer it makes me wonder if the tennis community thought they underpalyed Pete too much, and now they have learned their lesson.

One of the funniest things I read around here. I am sure the tennis community had lived in so much guilt since Sampras retired and were just waiting for the next great to come around, so to redeem their sins. Sure, make sense.

Phil
03-06-2005, 04:11 AM
AAAA speaks truth.

All this talk about Pete being low key and classy is utter BS. Pete is a Leo, and Leo's L-O-V-E attention and admiration. The more praise you give them, the more they want. Sampras wanted to break the GS record so that he'll always be talked about, and now Federer (another leo) want to break that record so his name shines brightest.

Pete loathed Andre because he felt all the praise, attention and money Agassi got should've gone to him. What he fails to see is that his personality is boring, and his game wasn't fan friendly.

Sampras was literally losing his hair to get into the limelight.

Yikes! Now you're using astrology as a "logical" basis for demeaning Sampras' career. That's pretty desperate, or pathetic. Keep trying, though...you can't change the numbers, but you can sure try to work around 'em. Say it AGAIN, Berchtel-F-O-U-R-T-E-E-N...c'mon...I know you can do it. Not sure what your point is here. Are you?

big ted
03-06-2005, 04:47 AM
regardless of whether he was a great player or not, he had a boring tennis personality. he didnt put fans in the seats, he didnt raise tv ratings , and he didnt get huge money endorsement deals the way agassi, mcenroe, borg, connors and even lendl to a extent. at least lendl had the darth vader image going for him the man u love to hate. nike didnt renew his contract with him at the beginning of 2002 does that tell u anything ?

joehight
03-06-2005, 07:04 AM
you can't see it by your own name because you aren't going to report yourself are you? i believe it is by everyones name. every post. it's there on every one, so if it is objectionable, you click on the triangle and it allows you to report. just because it is visible (which it is on every post besides yours when you're logged in) doesn't mean that every post is reported, if you see what i mean. log out and check the board out as a guest, and you will see the triangle by your name too.

oh yeah, and ed, what's the deal with your post count? no way have i posted here more than you. ..."caught her messin' 'round with another man, and that ain't too cool..."

Finally, I get it. Confess to being a little slow on this one.

Phil
03-06-2005, 05:37 PM
regardless of whether he was a great player or not, he had a boring tennis personality. he didnt put fans in the seats, he didnt raise tv ratings , and he didnt get huge money endorsement deals the way agassi, mcenroe, borg, connors and even lendl to a extent. at least lendl had the darth vader image going for him the man u love to hate. nike didnt renew his contract with him at the beginning of 2002 does that tell u anything ?

He wasn't a court jester/clown, a total a-hole or a fashion plate, like the players you listed. He just showed up and wiped the field. He considered himself a tennis player first. Not his fault that the typical "fan" preferred to see WWF tennis. He just played and won. The only attention he sought was for his achievements on court. Can't ask much more of a player. No real "fan" of the game, who actually knows something about tennis, would make these idiotic comments.

Nike and Sampras had a dispute over money-they DELAYED renewing his contract (but it WAS renewed, eventually) because they did not want to pay him what he felt he was worth. I'm not sure ANYONE is worth what he thought he was worth, but then again, Nike could afford it.

Bertchel Banks
03-06-2005, 06:24 PM
Yikes! Now you're using astrology as a "logical" basis for demeaning Sampras' career. That's pretty desperate, or pathetic. Keep trying, though...you can't change the numbers, but you can sure try to work around 'em. Say it AGAIN, Berchtel-F-O-U-R-T-E-E-N...c'mon...I know you can do it. Not sure what your point is here. Are you?

Quote me where I used astrology to demean Pete's career. My point was that Pete is a media *****, who craved attention. To paraphrase him, "When I burst onthe seen in 1990 I wasn't ready for all the attention, so everyone assumed I was shy, but I'm ready now."

Bertchel Banks
03-06-2005, 06:46 PM
He just played and won. The only attention he sought was for his achievements on court. Can't ask much more of a player. No real "fan" of the game, who actually knows something about tennis, would make these idiotic comments.

Puhleez!! Any real "fan" of the game who consider the opinions of others on the game of tennis idiotic, is a loser. Only within this pathetic fringe is what Sampras did taken as anything more than entertainment. Pete served the same purpose as Anna Kournikova, entertainment value. He wasn't smart to this fact and foolishly went to nike with thirteen majors and demanding more money.

Phil
03-06-2005, 07:18 PM
Quote me where I used astrology to demean Pete's career. My point was that Pete is a media *****, who craved attention. To paraphrase him, "When I burst onthe seen in 1990 I wasn't ready for all the attention, so everyone assumed I was shy, but I'm ready now."

So what. He wanted attention, just like almost any big time athlete. No one is saying he was a wallflower-why hold that against him? Because, possibly, there's nothing ELSE that you can legitimately criticize about his record? He certainly wasn't a "media wh-re" either". You're just projecting Agassi's and other tennis clowns' characteristics onto Sampras. The issue is his TENNIS and in that respect, he was unparalleled in his time. Period. Spell it, BB...1-4...that's FOURTEEN. Now what part of FOURTEEN don't you understand?

Bertchel Banks
03-06-2005, 07:36 PM
What do you mean there's nothing else for me to criticze about his record? I pretty much said what I wanted to on the subject in the other threads.

I am only answering the question posted in this thread. Outside of a very-very die-hard minority sprinkled about he USA, Pete was a very-very boring player to watch.