PDA

View Full Version : Better athlete: Federer or Sampras


Pages : [1] 2

dangalak
09-17-2012, 04:43 PM
I wanted to compare Sampras and Nadal, but many would dismiss Pete because of his lack of stamina.

So I am comparing him to a lesser athlete in Federer. Who is more athletic in your opinion.

RF20Lennon
09-17-2012, 04:52 PM
highly doubt sampras wouldve been able to keep up with nadal in tough 5 setters physically

scotus
09-17-2012, 05:10 PM
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras

Sid_Vicious
09-17-2012, 05:12 PM
in b4 the Natural and 90sClay.

stormholloway
09-17-2012, 05:13 PM
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras

Exactly.

I think Federer probably has a clear edge in endurance as well. Sampras rarely had to endure long grueling baseline battles to win majors.

90's Clay
09-17-2012, 05:15 PM
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger

MTF07
09-17-2012, 05:55 PM
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
Of course. And Pete would have won 25 majors without this blood disorder.

roundiesee
09-17-2012, 06:00 PM
I would think Pete had a slight edge (and bearing in mind he had Thalassemia); I have never seen anyone move so explosively and with such an intent on offense as Pete Sampras.

DeShaun
09-17-2012, 06:09 PM
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras

Very well said.

Bjorn99
09-17-2012, 06:09 PM
High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.

And Federer's sudden out of nowhere concentration?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5uv7j25Us&feature=plcp I would wager that he is fully hip to these.

gsharma
09-17-2012, 06:11 PM
High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.

You don't believe in lifting weights and getting stronger, do you? By the way, Pete could dunk a tennis ball, not a basketball which would require a higher vertical jump.

Semi-Pro
09-17-2012, 06:12 PM
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger

So, in essence, whoever can dunk a standard 10 foot rim is a better athlete than one who cannot. Gotcha.

TheFifthSet
09-17-2012, 09:17 PM
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger

He could dunk a volleyball, not a basketball.

stormholloway
09-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ

Most of those "slam dunks" aren't even lobs intended to go over Sampras. He generally performed that move for effect.

I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got

But since nobody has measured, we'll never know. I'm sure Federer can jump plenty high.

Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Mainly? Federer lays waste to a line of hitting partners in 120 degree weather. The man is a phenom.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Also? You already mentioned Sampras' vertical leaps. In fact that's all you've given him.

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger

Nonsense. Nobody moves or has ever moved on a tennis court with the quickness and anticipation of Federer. It's not even close. His first movement to the ball is lightning quick and his footwork his unparalleled.

And I've watched a lot of and appreciate Sampras. You're a fanboy without any objectivity.

Raging Buddha
09-17-2012, 10:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8

I'm pretty sure that's better than half the stuff in the Sampras video. And it's pretty sad if you're using the ability to jump high as the sole comparison for athleticism.

BorisBeckerFan
09-17-2012, 10:51 PM
I am not sure what there is to compare really. Pete was a beast, an absolute animal. Federer is more graceful and has better stamina. What Pete has over Fed in sheer explosiveness Fed more than makes up for with amazing footwork and anticipation. Totally different types of players in my opinion. Also depends a lot on what one values in an athlete. Obviously these 2 being particularly gifted.

BorisBeckerFan
09-17-2012, 10:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8

I'm pretty sure that's better than half the stuff in the Sampras video. And it's pretty sad if you're using the ability to jump high as the sole comparison for athleticism.

Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.

Headshotterer
09-17-2012, 10:59 PM
Sampras who?

Raging Buddha
09-17-2012, 11:20 PM
Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.
Of course there was several dunks in the Sampras version that were better, it's just that that dunk was quite a bit better than some of the dunks in the Sampras video.

But this one is probably better than the Wimbledon one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8

TennisLovaLova
09-17-2012, 11:54 PM
Sampras who?

Roger Federer

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:09 AM
They're both amazing athletes.

But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:17 AM
They're both amazing athletes.

But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.

I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:25 AM
I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.

17 > 14

10federers

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:29 AM
17 > 14

10federers

Yes, let your inner ******* shine! :)

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:31 AM
Yes, let your inner ******* shine! :)

Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:34 AM
Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

Well, my apologies. I guess the smiley face didn't do much there.

I thought the baby on your avatar was so cute that I sort of made the connection between the baby and your inner ... that.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.

firepanda
09-18-2012, 12:38 AM
Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:38 AM
Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.

Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?

I was only kidding about you being a ******* previously, but it actually may be true.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:41 AM
Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?

What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the better player?

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:42 AM
Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.

So you think Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Isner are all "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:45 AM
What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the btter player?

Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:48 AM
Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.

I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.

zagor
09-18-2012, 12:48 AM
Yes, let your inner ******* shine! :)

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer

Keeping in mind that the majority of Fed's slam losses to Nadal came at FO where Sampras never even sniffed a final.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.

Actually in slams that Nadal has beaten Fed he's mostly as good or better than Fed.

At the FO which is where most of their slam meetings took place he's obviously much better than Fed.

On AO's plexicushion (introduced in 2008) Nadal has one title, same as Fed.

Sure, Nadal also beat Fed in a Wimbledon final but he has an overall losing record against Fed in that regard (Wimbledon finals).

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:51 AM
I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.

I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Then you responded to that by saying 17 is greater than 14.

scotus
09-18-2012, 12:54 AM
So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer


What have you been drinking?

I would refer you back to my Post #31.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 12:56 AM
I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:04 AM
Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

kalyan4fedever
09-18-2012, 01:06 AM
Federer, also he need to take some time off to work on a GOAT son he has yet to produce.

firepanda
09-18-2012, 01:08 AM
So you think Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Isner are all "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

Not Isner...

God only knows how he got in the top 10.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:10 AM
Not Isner...

God only knows how he got in the top 10.

Okay, so let's take Isner out of there then.

I'll say Tipsarevic has more endurance than Sampras, but you think he is "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

And you really think Delpo is "vastly more athletic" than sampras?

What's your definition of "vastly"?

IMHO, neither of the two is more athletic than Sampras.

firepanda
09-18-2012, 01:16 AM
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 01:19 AM
Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

TheFifthSet
09-18-2012, 01:21 AM
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:22 AM
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Athleticism cannot be defined by endurance alone.

Even when Agassi was at the height of his fitness and had arguably better endurance than most of the ATP pros today, Sampras could come out, even when he wasn't at his best, and defeat Agassi.

Sampras may have lacked endurance, but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:27 AM
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.

Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:27 AM
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

Yes!!!!!!!

Zarfot Z
09-18-2012, 01:29 AM
Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".

If you've played that much matches, a difference of five percent is pretty decent.

Federer has won more than a hundred matches than Sampras.

zagor
09-18-2012, 01:30 AM
What have you been drinking?

Ice-tea mostly but I'm sober don't worry.

I would refer you back to my Post #31.

OK, I agree overall that because player A has more slams than player B it doesn't mean that player would beat player B more often than vice versa, I mean that's kinda obvious, matches aren't decided on paper, they have to be played out.

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

Also as I said, Nadal beating Fed mostly at FO has no bearing on how a hypothetical match-up between Sampras and Fed would go, every match-up is unique and all we have to go regarding Fed and Sampras is one single match which is far too small of a sample and neither player was anywhere near his best on top of that (Fed was still years from his peak/prime while Sampras was years past it).

zagor
09-18-2012, 01:36 AM
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.

Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:40 AM
However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

You are still not following the thread closely.

There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.

zagor
09-18-2012, 01:42 AM
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.

Endurance/fitness doesn't = athleticism.

I'd say Sampras was faster than almost any other player today, especially in forward movement, he was a cheetah in that regard.

I'd say he's a better pure athlete than Fed but Fed has better anticipation (one of the best I've ever seen in that regard), footwork and transition from defense to offense.

TheFifthSet
09-18-2012, 01:42 AM
Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.

yes although i dont think this particular poster was getting at that though. i think he was merely saying, just because federer is the better or more accomplished player, doesn't mean sampras wouldnt have given him fits, and pointed to nadal as an example of someone who fits the mould of someone who is less accomplished but is hard for fed to beat. I could be wrong but i think it was more of a defense of sampras rather than an attack of federer.

however i do agree with you on your point that sampras fans do take it overboard at times with the nadal-federer h2h (not saying scotus is doing that, just in general), given the distribution of matches on each surface and the slowing of the surfaces and how their games match up. i think if you put sampras in federers shoes, he'd probably fare worse against nadal than fed did. its highly doubtful he'd beat nadal even once in 14 attempts on clay, something federer did twice. and on todays slow hardcourts rafa would get his scalps and the occasional win on one of the faster surfaces. but i think nadal would win the head to head. at the same time i think if you match up fed/sampras against nadal against the 90s surfaces, rafa be overwhelmed most of the time.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:43 AM
Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

If any Sampras fan made that argument, that would be a logical fallacy.

The Nadal-Fed H2H only serves to argue that the slam count differential does not dictate the H2H outcomes.

Russeljones
09-18-2012, 01:46 AM
highly doubt sampras wouldve been able to keep up with nadal in tough 5 setters physically

Pete in 3 - problem solved! :lol:

Sabratha
09-18-2012, 01:47 AM
I'm going to say Federer.

zagor
09-18-2012, 01:49 AM
There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

More accomplished no doubt, complete player? I have my doubts, Sampras was more of an all-courter than Fed, people forget that he used to play a lot from the baseline as well at his peak, I'd say he used the whole court more than Fed.

That said, complete player doesn't always mean better player, I feel Fed is a slightly better player than Sampras.

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.

We obviously have different views in that regard, for me a better player is a player who does better against the field as a whole with H2H factoring very little if at all.

scotus
09-18-2012, 01:51 AM
More accomplished no doubt, complete player? I have my doubts, Sampras was more of an all-courter than Fed, people forget that he used to play a lot from the baseline as well at his peak, I'd say he used the whole court more than Fed.

That said, complete player doesn't always mean better player, I feel Fed is a slightly better player than Sampras.



We obviously have different views in that regard, for me a better player is a player who does better against the field as a whole with H2H factoring very little if at all.

Okay, let's say between Zarfot and me, there's no such disagreement. Now that you've entered the conversation, I should have been clearer about that.

Bobby Jr
09-18-2012, 02:52 AM
There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.
...but still managing to get beaten by nobodies at a rate Federer hasn't stooped to in a decade.

mattennis
09-18-2012, 03:00 AM
Both great athletes, effortless fluid movements.

Federer endurance miles better than Sampras (Pete had stamina problems).

Sampras more explosive perhaps, quicker going into the net and really quick and smart there.

In Sampras's era it still was rewarded to be very quick and smart at the net, but now....(I think if Federer had played in the 90s we could have seen him doing much better at the net than what he has done in this era).

Look at this for example: conditions still rewarded quick and talented players at the net that went full pressure on the opponent (like McEnroe, Cash, Edberg or young Sampras here that sometimes chose to attack the net relentlessly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMGd3wUju94

Will we ever see this beautiful net-game show type of tennis again?

MurrayMyInspiration
09-18-2012, 05:47 AM
Who would win a wrestling match between the two? Pete
Who would win a 50metre dash? Pete
Who would win a high jump or long jump? Pete
Who would win longer distance race? Roger
Reflexes, agility, flexibility? Cant decide.
Who could throw a javelin further? A discus? Jump hurdles? Swim better?
If you had to pick one to do a days work on the railroads you would pick PETE. Simples!

RF20Lennon
09-18-2012, 07:08 AM
This is the next prime fed vs Sampras thread

BigServer1
09-18-2012, 09:21 AM
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras

This.

10 of These.

90's Clay
09-18-2012, 09:44 AM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

NadalAgassi
09-18-2012, 09:53 AM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

Comparing Sampras's baseline game to Federer's net game most of the time is a no brainer. Sampras's baseline game >>>>> Federer's net game.

Prisoner of Birth
09-18-2012, 10:15 AM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

And yet he hasn't made a single Grand Slam final on "90's Clay." Sampras is great but he's definitely not the complete package that Federer is.

RF20Lennon
09-18-2012, 10:56 AM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

Oh really?? Please tell me why he failed miserably on clay!! Typical American bias!!

President
09-18-2012, 10:59 AM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

I hear Pete could also walk on water and outsprint Usain Bolt :|

Magnetite
09-18-2012, 11:05 AM
I'd say Pete. He seemed more explosive. He had more strength and power.

Fed is quicker and has more endurance.

It's really close, but I just have to give it to Pete because I'm sure he had the better vertical.

Tough call though.

tennis_pro
09-18-2012, 11:14 AM
Who would win a wrestling match between the two? Pete
Who would win a 50metre dash? Pete
Who would win a high jump or long jump? Pete
Who would win longer distance race? Roger
Reflexes, agility, flexibility? Cant decide.
Who could throw a javelin further? A discus? Jump hurdles? Swim better?
If you had to pick one to do a days work on the railroads you would pick PETE. Simples!

You're crazy.

mattennis
09-18-2012, 12:47 PM
I would have loved to see Federer play in the 90s, because with his talent we would have seen him use much more net game in an era with much more polarized conditions.

I still enjoy todays tennis, but not as much as previous eras.

Today with bigger, fluffy balls and slow hard-courts everywhere and poly-strings on top of that, the game is too much baseline-top-spin oriented. The ball sits up and it is so easy to smack a hard and heavy top-spin shot from the back of the court once and again till the sun goes down.

I think Federer would have done even more amazing shots and beautiful things in the 90s or earlier (when the game was much more varied than today and many different playing styles were possible)

TheFifthSet
09-18-2012, 12:51 PM
I really hope no one would say Fed as being more "complete" or "all around" then Sampras. People that would say that, obviously never saw Pete in the early-mid 90s when he could destroy you from both the baseline, service line and at the net. His transition to the net and net game was one of the best ever.. He was one of the best all court players how used the ENTIRE court to his advantage the game has ever seen.

Sampras destroyed guys like Courier, Becker, Agassi from the baseline and the net consistently in his prime.. He could outhit you from the baseline or if he chose to would attack you right after a punishing serve and next thing you know point was over. Pete was already flying in for an overhead slam

He consistently destroyed Agassi from the baseline eh....funny guy.

Smasher08
09-18-2012, 12:56 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DV66MpFth9E/S74V5o3FJmI/AAAAAAAAA0A/kEuKjEsWh9k/s1600/ab+%286%29.jpg

10fedin5byawhiskers

mattennis
09-18-2012, 01:01 PM
He didn't destroy Agassi or Courier or Chang consistently from the baseline.

It was that in many many situations, in an important point, he (I don't know why) used to stay back and play the point from the baseline, long points, and usually won the majority of those important points even against the best baseliners of the game.

But the "not so important points", when he was 15-0 or 30-0 down returning, he lost A LOT of baseline points almost as he didn't even care.

It was really strange and I remember many people thinking the same: why does he play so well from the baseline when the point is important, and so bad (or so careless) when the point didn't matter that much?

It was the way he played. Perhaps he could never sustain all the attention and focus for all the points in an entire match (he was not a Borg, Nadal, Wilander, Lendl, Connors...type of player that seemed to focus in each and every point of every match as if it was the last point of the match).

Sid_Vicious
09-18-2012, 01:59 PM
Oh really?? Please tell me why he failed miserably on clay!! Typical American bias!!

What a strange thing to say. Some of the biggest Sampras fans on this forum are from Europe.

Bjorn99
09-18-2012, 06:55 PM
The reason why Federer would destroy beat over a period of matches is that Federer has a better return of serve than Agassi and Connors combined.

Watch Federer return versus Kraijcek indoors and see why he was able to return Roddicks serve at Wimbledon the year Roddicks serve was probably the biggest serve EVER seen at Wimbledon.

Once the ball was in play, HOW was Federer going to lose to Sampras?

Don't get me wrong, Sampras was great, and some thought they would never see anything as great as him for a long time, but next to Federer, he sucked. He really did. Federer, by playing down to Sampras' level in those exhibitions, really fooled a lot of people.

To me, its all about the return of serve. Federer would have returned Petes serve rather easily, and that would have been the end of Pete.

If Federer hadn't been paid and coaxed to make those exos competitive, this thread wouldn't exist.

90's Clay
09-18-2012, 06:57 PM
The reason why Federer would destroy beat over a period of matches is that Federer has a better return of serve than Agassi and Connors combined.

Watch Federer return versus Kraijcek indoors and see why he was able to return Roddicks serve at Wimbledon the year Roddicks serve was probably the biggest serve EVER seen at Wimbledon.

Once the ball was in play, HOW was Federer going to lose to Sampras?

Don't get me wrong, Sampras was great, and some thought they would never see anything as great as him for a long time, but next to Federer, he sucked. He really did. Federer, by playing down to Sampras' level in those exhibitions, really fooled a lot of people.

To me, its all about the return of serve. Federer would have returned Petes serve rather easily, and that would have been the end of Pete.

If Federer hadn't been paid and coaxed to make those exos competitive, this thread wouldn't exist.


Im sorry I had to stop reading after that:?

TMF
09-18-2012, 07:11 PM
Im sorry I had to stop reading after that:?

He's talking about prime Federer, not a 31 years old Federer.

Remember Fed at 19 handles Pete's serve better than Agassi did on grass.

90's Clay
09-18-2012, 07:14 PM
He's talking about prime Federer, not a 31 years old Federer.

Remember Fed at 19 handles Pete's serve better than Agassi did on grass.

Still nonsense.. Fed at no time was a better ROS then Andre. Please... Andre is hands down the best ROS in history

TMF
09-18-2012, 07:33 PM
Still nonsense.. Fed at no time was a better ROS then Andre.
If Fed had the return of Agassi on grass, he wouldn't beat Pete at 2001 Wimbledon.

Please... Andre is hands down the best ROS in history
Agassi disagree with you.

Andre Agassi said in a conference call last week. “I got news for you: I was aggressive with my return, but you look at a guy like Djokovic and he’s like the best of me, the best of Hewitt, the best of Federer, he plays defensive, he can play offensive—these guys [the big three] have taken different parts of the game and just redefined its standard.”

Sid_Vicious
09-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Who would win a wrestling match between the two? Pete
Who would win a 50metre dash? Pete
Who would win a high jump or long jump? Pete
Who would win longer distance race? Roger
Reflexes, agility, flexibility? Cant decide.
Who could throw a javelin further? A discus? Jump hurdles? Swim better?
[B]If you had to pick one to do a days work on the railroads you would pick PETE. Simples!

Yeah, I can just imagine how easy it would be to identify Pete among the railroad workers. Just look for the guy who is breathing hard and walking like a zombie after 1 hour of work yet still doing a great job. :)

Limpinhitter
09-18-2012, 08:07 PM
I wanted to compare Sampras and Nadal, but many would dismiss Pete because of his lack of stamina.

So I am comparing him to a lesser athlete in Federer. Who is more athletic in your opinion.

I dispute your premise that Federer is the lesser athlete than Nadal. He may not have the pure strength or footspeed, but, athleticism is more than that. It also includes balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination.

With that in mind, IMO, Sampras was faster and stronger than either of them. But, I still give Federer the edge over Sampras in terms of balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination. The proof, I submit, can be found in Federer's superior return game. Federer can stand in close and still handle the biggest serves. Sampras could do that, but, not at the level Fed does, or did.

So, on balance, I have to call it a draw between Federer and Sampras, and I give both of them an edge over Nadal.

The-Champ
09-18-2012, 08:25 PM
I dispute your premise that Federer is the lesser athlete than Nadal. He may not have the pure strength or footspeed, but, athleticism is more than that. It also includes balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination.

With that in mind, IMO, Sampras was faster and stronger than either of them. But, I still give Federer the edge over Sampras in terms of balance, timing, coordination, eye-hand coordination. The proof, I submit, can be found in Federer's superior return game. Federer can stand in close and still handle the biggest serves. Sampras could do that, but, not at the level Fed does, or did.

So, on balance, I have to call it a draw between Federer and Sampras, and I give both of them an edge over Nadal.

I'm one of Pete's biggest fans but he didn't have a very good balance when playing on clay. Fedal moves great everywhere..

Bjorn99
09-19-2012, 05:34 AM
Still nonsense.. Fed at no time was a better ROS then Andre. Please... Andre is hands down the best ROS in history


Agassi is NOT a better returner than Federer. Federer totally dismantles big serves. Negates them entirely. And that is why Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon really. Sampras kept cranking up, and the ball kept coming back at angles and depth that Pete couldn't adjust to.

Federer beat Sampras when he was a teenager at the worlds biggest stage, and at the place where Sampras least wanted to be beaten at.

Athlete? Who cares about that? Tennis player? Federer, by a mile. And Pete was great. But Pete relied mostly on the big serve. And I am saying that Federer delighted in their one and ONLY encounter in returning it with ease. No contest really. And strokes and movement. WATCH THE MATCH.

Bjorn99
09-19-2012, 05:37 AM
Words are lost on most people. Myself included from time to time,but pictorially, this clip on youtube should demonstrate what I am talking about.

Richard K. had a better serve than anyone, including Pete, and this is almost cruel, what Federer did to the guy. Cruel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUnpN1Vh0WA

Dharmaboy
09-19-2012, 06:08 AM
Speed. Sampras easy. He was on you so fast if there was a short ball and unless you were Agassi, your pass was handled with ease.

Fed's mental endurance as well as the physical has made him win some tough battles

mattennis
09-19-2012, 06:58 AM
By the way, (and a bit off topic here but I have just seen it). There were very slow outdoor hardcourts in the 90s as well, look at how slow conditions (specially balls) were in the Australian Open of 1997 (baseliners, most of them clay-courters, reached QF or better that year like Muster, Moya, Costa, Mantilla, Rios, Chang). Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l7YhNCmVCo

But the thing is that there were obviously very fast hardcourts as well and indoor carpet.

Today, almost all outdoor harcourts (and balls) are like this one of AusOpen'97 or even slower (and there's no carpet anymore).

helloworld
09-19-2012, 08:29 AM
Agassi is NOT a better returner than Federer. Federer totally dismantles big serves. Negates them entirely. And that is why Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon really. Sampras kept cranking up, and the ball kept coming back at angles and depth that Pete couldn't adjust to.

Federer beat Sampras when he was a teenager at the worlds biggest stage, and at the place where Sampras least wanted to be beaten at.

Athlete? Who cares about that? Tennis player? Federer, by a mile. And Pete was great. But Pete relied mostly on the big serve. And I am saying that Federer delighted in their one and ONLY encounter in returning it with ease. No contest really. And strokes and movement. WATCH THE MATCH.

You are actually using a match where young Federer played OUT OF HIS MIND against one of Sampras' worst days at Wimbledon? Good luck with that! :confused:

TMF
09-19-2012, 08:38 AM
You are actually using a match where young Federer played OUT OF HIS MIND against one of Sampras' worst days at Wimbledon? Good luck with that! :confused:

WRONG.

Sampras serving that day was well above his normal standard. He served 69% that day and had more pop on it than during his prime years. Sampras normally don't serve this high %, and many of previous Wimbledon matches his serve % was in the 50, yet he still win because the other player's return are inferior to Roger.

helloworld
09-19-2012, 08:54 AM
WRONG.

Sampras serving that day was well above his normal standard. He served 69% that day and had more pop on it than during his prime years. Sampras normally don't serve this high %, and many of previous Wimbledon matches his serve % was in the 50, yet he still win because the other player's return are inferior to Roger.

WRONG. As Brad Gilbert said, Sampras was most dangerous when his 1st serve % is around 50%. This is when he was most confident with his serve and will go the the biggest serves. His high % meant he wasn't going for his 1st serve, and was resorting to playing safe usually when he had a bad day, and had to rely on high percentage on 1st serve. Unless you think you know more than Brad Gilbert, who was Agassi's coach and studied Pete's game very thoroughly.

TMF
09-19-2012, 09:02 AM
WRONG. As Brad Gilbert said, Sampras was most dangerous when his 1st serve % is around 50%. This is when he was most confident with his serve and will go the the biggest serves. His high % meant he wasn't going for his 1st serve, and was resorting to playing safe usually when he had a bad day, and had to rely on high percentage on 1st serve. Unless you think you know more than Brad Gilbert, who was Agassi's coach and studied Pete's game very thoroughly.

??????????????????????????????

You're saying Pete's 1st serve is easier to deal with than his 2nd serve.:shock:

So instead of him serving 69% against Roger in 2001, had he serve 50%, he would have won the match.:lol:

TheFifthSet
09-19-2012, 09:43 AM
Agassi has a case for being the greatest returner in the open era although he has stiff competition with Conners, Borg, Nole and Murray among others.

Feds return of serve is one of the best of his era, particularly the first serve return. He's definitely better than Sampras in that regard, but not Agassi.

PS - a big reason Fed might do better against big serves than Agassi is that he is a better player overall. There's more to winning than a great return of serve . . . if we wanna make an accurate comparison we could compare % of return games won against big servers.

TheFifthSet
09-19-2012, 09:46 AM
If Fed had the return of Agassi on grass, he wouldn't beat Pete at 2001 Wimbledon.


I don't think one match is a big enough sample size to make that conclusion.

Lambo
09-19-2012, 09:58 AM
I do not understand what the confusion is all about....

Fed a better athlete by a mile. His longevity and winning grandslams at his age is a testament to that.

Add to that the game is far more physical in the current day and age and for fed to dominate for so long proves the guy is a great athlete........he plays the in a manner and a style others dream of......

RF20Lennon
09-19-2012, 10:12 AM
I do not understand what the confusion is all about....

Fed a better athlete by a mile. His longevity and winning grandslams at his age is a testament to that.

Add to that the game is far more physical in the current day and age and for fed to dominate for so long proves the guy is a great athlete........he plays the in a manner and a style others dream of......

I second this but Sampras had more explosive power than fed otherwise I'm with you

TMF
09-19-2012, 10:27 AM
I don't think one match is a big enough sample size to make that conclusion.

Yeah, but had they met more on grass, one can't conclude that Roger would do better or worse. Who knows, but most likely it would be the same. Match up issues doesn't change.

TheFifthSet
09-19-2012, 10:45 AM
Yeah, but had they met more on grass, one can't conclude that Roger would do better or worse. Who knows, but most likely it would be the same. Match up issues doesn't change.

So then why assume Federer would have done worse on grass against Sampras if he had Agassis return? By saying he would do worse, you kinda did conclude that.

TMF
09-19-2012, 11:03 AM
So then why assume Federer would have done worse on grass against Sampras if he had Agassis return? By saying he would do worse, you kinda did conclude that.

I concluded that Fed return better than Agassi on grass. If you compare Agassi return against Pete 1999 Wimbledon to Federer 2001 Wimbledon, Fed had more success. Pete won 89% of his 1st serve against Agassi, but 76% against Federer. Agassi had 4 break chances, Fed had 11, and Fed had to face a higher 1st serve percentage(69 to 66). I also believe Sampras serve better in 2001 than in 1999.

TheFifthSet
09-19-2012, 11:33 AM
I concluded that Fed return better than Agassi on grass. If you compare Agassi return against Pete 1999 Wimbledon to Federer 2001 Wimbledon, Fed had more success. Pete won 89% of his 1st serve against Agassi, but 76% against Federer. Agassi had 4 break chances, Fed had 11, and Fed had to face a higher 1st serve percentage(69 to 66). I also believe Sampras serve better in 2001 than in 1999.

Well that's a little misleading, you said return of serve, not comparative return stats over their respective matches against Sampras. And you were backing up a poster who said that Federers return was better than Agassi's and Connors combined, so it's not hard to deduce that you were trying to argue that Federer's return on grass was better than Agassi's.

Also, almost everyone who say the 1999 Wimbledon final in its entirety would agree that it was one of the finest serving performances in Sampras's career. Not that it matters much, people can be wrong, but if you watch both matches it's pretty clear Sampras served better in '99. His placement and variety was extraordinary even for Sampras, and it had Andre baffled.

Al Czervik
09-19-2012, 11:35 AM
This is a great question. I think you have to give it to Roger. Sampras had better technique on volleys and could jump higher. Pete was somewhat catlike, but if he was that good of a mover, he wouldn't have stunk so bad on clay. Plus, he just flat out won a lot of points with aces and bludgeoning groundies. Roger's game is all about movement.

Pete's snow job of battling through while sick/tired always annoyed me. It was very Rafa like. He acted dead and struggling between points, but played just fine between the lines.

TMF
09-19-2012, 11:56 AM
Well that's a little misleading, you said return of serve, not comparative return stats over their respective matches against Sampras. And you were backing up a poster who said that Federers return was better than Agassi's and Connors combined, so it's not hard to deduce that you were trying to argue that Federer's return on grass was better than Agassi's.

Nope. I never mentioned a word about Connors. I just pointed out that Bjorn99 was referring to a prime Fed, not a 31 yrs old Fed. I could be wrong if Bjorn99 really meant the current Fed. My view is Fed return better than Agassi on grass.


Also, almost everyone who say the 1999 Wimbledon final in its entirety would agree that it was one of the finest serving performances in Sampras's career. Not that it matters much, people can be wrong, but if you watch both matches it's pretty clear Sampras served better in '99. His placement and variety was extraordinary even for Sampras, and it had Andre baffled.

Sampras serve % in 1999
R128 - 62%
R64 - 73%
R32 - 74%
R16 - 69%
QF - 50%
Semi - 52%
Final - 66%

Sampras serve % in 2001
R128 - 67%
R64 - 69%
R32 - 60%
R16 - 69%

You can argue Fed serve better in 2001.

TheFifthSet
09-19-2012, 12:12 PM
[QUOTE=TMF;6908647]Nope. I never mentioned a word about Connors. I just pointed out that Bjorn99 was referring to a prime Fed, not a 31 yrs old Fed. I could be wrong if Bjorn99 really meant the current Fed. My view is Fed return better than Agassi on grass.

Ok, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion, however it's not one that's backed up by evidence. I personally don't think there's any reason to think Federer is better on the return against Agassi on any surface. But different strokes for different folks I guess.



Sampras serve % in 1999
R128 - 62%
R64 - 73%
R32 - 74%
R16 - 69%
QF - 50%
Semi - 52%
Final - 66%

Sampras serve % in 2001
R128 - 67%
R64 - 69%
R32 - 60%
R16 - 69%

You can argue Fed serve better in 2001.

First of all, I thought we were comparing in which match Sampras served better (2001 Wimby 4th round or 1999 Wimby final), not overall tournament stats...serving performance can fluctuate from one day to the next. Also, Sampras was definitely a much better server in 1999 than 2001. In '99 he won 90% of his service games, compared to 86% in 2001, and won a higher percentage of first and second serve ponts. Why just use first serve percentage? That's a tad bizarre, by that logic Nadal is the best serve because he has among the highest first serve averages. There's other statistics you can use to gauge, too. In 1999 Wimby Sampras was broken 5 times in 7 matches . . . in 2001 he was broken 5 times in 4 matches, and Federer was the only quality returner he faced whereas in '99 he faced Agassi as well as Henman. He surely served better in '99.

mattennis
09-19-2012, 01:00 PM
One of the most important aspects of Federer (that many times passes unnoticed) is that he was as well one of the best defenders (when needed).

Federer serve, forehand, backhand...winners in all kind of positions were absolutely great, but we all have seen great players making a ton of amazing winners in the past.

The thing with Federer is that, when he wasn't winning being the aggresor, he could grind out matches like the best ones (in his prime at least).

I've seen many times where Federer did run endlessly because he needed to do it.

I remember Federer running like crazy from corner to corner in the US OPEN'05 Final (against Agassi) in the second and third sets, because he wasn't feeling confident with his backhand.

I can not imagine Sampras or Agassi doing something like that. Agassi and Sampras would live and die playing their style: aggresion, dictating the points to death.

Obviously they could and would run like crazy in some very important points, but not for an entire match.

Federer has showed countless times in his career that, if needed, he could run and defend like the best ones, and could do it for hours.

That is one of the things of Federer that differentiates him from other great aggresive players from the 90s like Sampras or Agassi or Becker.

Usually, the players that almost always can impose their aggresive game (Sampras, Agassi, Becker,...) and so normally run way less than their rivals, they don't like to be the defending runners at all. They can do it on occasions, some important points, but you didn't see Sampras, Agassi or Becker doing it for hours, they preferred to take even more risks in their shots (and so to make the other guy run more than you again even if upping unforced errors) than to grind out matches.

Federer could and in fact was very good at that as well (very quick, great footwork and special ability to retrieve very difficult shots).

That very important aspect of his game is one of the main reasons why he had so very few losses during his prime. Even when not feeling specially inspired with his game, he could still win because he could and would run and grind if needed to win.

Agassi, Sampras, Becker, they lost many matches in which they looked as if tanking, because if they were doing a lot of unforced errors, instead of trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline (even if that meant they had to run more because the rival could then dictate more) they went on taking more and more risks in their shots and making more and more unforced errors that looked like tanking.

In that sense Federer could play like a Lendl, Wilander when needed (cutting down unforced errors), and obviously he could be a Becker, Sampras or Agassi taking risks and dictating points everytime he felt confident (the majority of his matches).

Prisoner of Birth
09-19-2012, 01:03 PM
One of the most important aspects of Federer (that many times passes unnoticed) is that he was as well one of the best defenders (when needed).

Federer serve, forehand, backhand...winners in all kind of positions were absolutely great, but we all have seen great players making a ton of amazing winners in the past.

The thing with Federer is that, when he wasn't winning being the aggresor, he could grind out matches like the best ones (in his prime at least).

I've seen many times where Federer did run endlessly because he needed to do it.

I remember Federer running like crazy from corner to corner in the US OPEN'05 Final (against Agassi) in the second and third sets, because he wasn't feeling confident with his backhand.

I can not imagine Sampras or Agassi doing something like that. Agassi and Sampras would live and die playing their style: aggresion, dictating the points to death.

Obviously they could and would run like crazy in some very important points, but not for an entire match.

Federer has showed countless times in his career that, if needed, he could run and defend like the best ones, and could do it for hours.

That is one of the things of Federer that differentiates him from other great aggresive players from the 90s like Sampras or Agassi or Becker.

Usually, the players that almost always can impose their aggresive game (Sampras, Agassi, Becker,...) and so normally run way less than their rivals, they don't like to be the defending runners at all. They can do it on occasions, some important points, but you didn't see Sampras, Agassi or Becker doing it for hours, they preferred to take even more risks in their shots (and so to make the other guy run more than you again even if upping unforced errors) than to grind out matches.

Federer could and in fact was very good at that as well (very quick, great footwork and special ability to retrieve very difficult shots).

That very important aspect of his game is one of the main reasons why he had so very few losses during his prime. Even when not feeling specially inspired with his game, he could still win because he could and would run and grind if needed to win.

Agassi, Sampras, Becker, they lost many matches in which they looked as if tanking, because if they were doing a lot of unforced errors, instead of trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline (even if that meant they had to run more because the rival could then dictate more) they went on taking more and more risks in their shots and making more and more unforced errors that looked like tanking.

In that sense Federer could play like a Lendl, Wilander when needed (cutting down unforced errors), and obviously he could be a Becker, Sampras or Agassi taking risks and dictating points everytime he felt confident (the majority of his matches).

Spot on. You can see how great his defense was in the 2005 Aussie semi-final against Safin, among others.

mattennis
09-19-2012, 01:25 PM
And seriously, that shows how much he (Federer) cares about tennis and about winning.

Because why other great players didn't do that?

OK, Sampras had Thalassemia, low stamina, he couldn't physically grind out matches, so his only option was winning making winners all night long.

Becker?, OK, he was a very big and a bit heavy guy. Even though he was terrificly strong, he possibly could never win running like crazy from corner to corner for hours. He had a heavy and big body.

But Agassi?, he had great stamina, he wasn't big (5 f. 10 i.). Agassi could have done it....had he been faster. But Agassi was not a great runner, simply. It is possible that he had better results being the aggresor all the time than grinding out matches (even when being the aggresor was failing him).

Federer had the great physical gift that he indeed could do it, and could do it like the best ones.

Perhaps Sampras could have been like that had he had better stamina, because he was quick like hell and cat-like, but he always chose not to (and probably was right, because with his condition his only option was winning dictating all the points).

Federer had the whole package, could do everything, that made him an incredibly difficult player to beat.

I remember Edberg as well. Even though his game was pure serve-and-volley, Edberg was very very fast and smooth when running on the baseline, and a great defender as well when needed, but he had not the great forehand of Federer, so he could not defend that well from the forehand side (he was great hitting backhand passing-shots though, and he hit great lobs too).

rst
09-26-2012, 09:45 PM
Sampras rarely had to endure long grueling baseline battles to win majors.

im not sure if a 10 shot basline rally exerts more energy than a 3 shot approach and leap. the approach may require bending more and then a blast of energy for a volly/drop. som ebasline rallys appear measured in exertion.

rst
09-26-2012, 09:48 PM
Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him."

could they dunk?? could they have been as succesfula at the style of play the pete had?

rst
09-26-2012, 09:50 PM
but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.........


cat like bursts over and over again take endurance...a special kind.

rst
09-26-2012, 10:01 PM
aside from a couple of players today does roger play more of a sampras type of game than anyone else?

rst
09-26-2012, 10:02 PM
if he does??? is it because its physically easier??? or other factors??

rst
09-26-2012, 10:06 PM
unless sent from corner of baseline to corner of basleine repeatedly, i have found that sprintign forward and having to perhaps chip and then leap into a hopefulley winning volley hurts more.

rst
09-26-2012, 10:15 PM
perhaps the clay surface negated petes type of moves to an extent that equalized or enhanced other atheltes games.

basketball on gravel is tough

dangalak
09-26-2012, 10:16 PM
[QUOTE]

Ok, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion, however it's not one that's backed up by evidence. I personally don't think there's any reason to think Federer is better on the return against Agassi on any surface. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

Federer has won 7 Wimbledon titles (3 of them against Roddick). Agassi has won 1.

rst
09-26-2012, 10:18 PM
trying to cut down errors and be more conservative from the baseline......


is that being less atheltic??? ill lift 100 lbs instead if 200 lbs, ie??

Sadyv
09-29-2012, 06:18 PM
Pete's a considerably better athlete, but Roger is a more skilled tennis player.

Roger is a very good athlete, who happened to have found the sport that best suits his particular set of talents most comfortably.

Sampras was a superb athlete who could have used his athleticism to get to a high level in many sports. Tennis at the time was best suited for him, these days the game has probably become too dependent on more continuous stamina output for it to be his best fit, though he'd still be very good.

It's easy to see Sampras wrestling freestyle in the Olympics or playing judo, playing in the backfield in American football, sprinting down the track or hurdling, chasing down a fly ball in baseball or cricket, even crossing someone up and dishing out a pass on the basketball court or hanging from the rings in gymnastics.

For Federer, other than maybe figure skating or football, he just seems grooved perfectly in his frame and athletic gifts to be a tennis player, but not those other things.

90's Clay
09-29-2012, 06:22 PM
Thats nonsense.. Pete was obviously very skilled and more of an "all courter" then Roger is. Roger was superior from the baseline.. Sampras superior all around the court. It takes more skill to be both dominant from the baseline AND at the net.

Sampras was a better player between both the baseline and the net.

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 06:22 PM
The poll results are a major LOL here but then again any poll with Federer in it on Planet TW is worth a major LOL.

Thats nonsense.. Pete was obviously very skilled and more of an "all courter" then Roger is. Roger was superior from the baseline.. Sampras superior all around the court. It takes more skill to be both dominant from the baseline AND at the net.

Sampras was a better player between both the baseline and the net.

True and Sampras from the baseline >>>> Federer at the net. Sampras has had many matches he outplayed Agassi and Courier from the baseline. I fail to see a hypothetical Federer having any days he would outplay prime McEnroe or prime Edberg (or prime Sampras) strictly from the net.

90's Clay
09-29-2012, 06:34 PM
I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster



Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 06:46 PM
I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster



Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

ITA with all you said, especialy the last sentence. Although I must say Sampras's inside out forehand scared opponents to heck as well, people would be scared to his forehand in his prime and would desperately try to work over his backhand corner, but eventually would have to go to the open court and face that dreaded running forehand. It was tough to know where to go vs prime Sampras from the baseline, except on clay sometimes where just made lazy errors, and not enough mental resilence or patience at times. Sampras's down the line forehand was amazing and IMO better than Federer's, and his inside out forehand was almost as great, only Federer's crosscourt forehand without being on the run (without either Sampras or Federer hitting it on the run, but more from a standstill) is more clearly better I guess. I wont even get into Federer's backhand which is so overrated on this forum it isnt even funny, it isnt bad of course, but it is closer to Sampras's than what people on this forum view it as being which is much superior to Gasquet, Kuerten, Nadal, Murray (who all have a much better backhand than Federer does), basically supposably better than anyone but Nalbandian, Agassi, and Djokovic on Planet TW.

Anyway that all aside this thread is purely about who is the better athlete so even those who feel Federer has a way better and more complete tennis game, Sampras should still come out ahead here. He is no doubt physically stronger, jumps higher by a long ways, is faster, is atleast as agile and flexible. In no way is Federer a better athlete. In a decathalon I would be willing to bet money Sampras comes out ahead easily.

helloworld
09-29-2012, 07:00 PM
I've watched both played, and I must say Sampras relied a lot more in his superior athleticism than Roger does. Pete wins this by a clear margin.

DragonBlaze
09-29-2012, 07:08 PM
I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

I don't think people realize how skilled you have to be to do that.

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras by a mile

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

Footwork- Federer

Speed-Sampras was faster

Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

Now let me use your logic -

1st and 2nd serve- Sampras although Federer is no slouch.

FH- Federer all day every day. Yes Sampras running forehand was great. HELL to the NO as an overall stroke, Federer is definitely superior.

BH- Federer by a CONTINENTAL mile.

Mental toughness in a big match - Pete is better.

Mental toughness displayed over the year/average level of play in prime - Federer

Defense- Again Roger, not even debatable

Stamina- Federer by a gap that is big enough to fit the grand canyon.

Athleticism - Pete by a hair.

Net Play- Pete

Footwork- Federer

Half volleys - Federer

Drop shots - Federer

Overhead - even, although Sampras had a more dramatic one for sure

-----------------------------------

Oh look, I can paint a picture with rose coloured glasses too!!! It is just as easy to shortchange Pete and exaggerate Fed's strength as it is to do the opposite. Furthermore I have also included some bullsh*t categories like you, e.g. having Speed and athleticism as two different categories. Net play and "Transition to net" also :lol:. Oh wait I forgot to include "Transition from defense to offense from the baseline" which btw Federer also wins.

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 07:13 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
09-29-2012, 07:24 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Only probably?

DragonBlaze
09-29-2012, 07:28 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

That's not the point, I was just giving an extremely biased version of their respective attributes. The point of my post was that 90s clay should atleast try to post a somewhat objective account rather than shortchanging Roger and excusing Pete's weaknesses. My post is clearly NOT an objective one either.

Also Fed does not "probably" have a better backhand. He does. Period. That's like me saying that Sampras "probably" has a better serve. Does that not sound ridiculous?

TheFifthSet
09-29-2012, 07:31 PM
I agree.. When people say Fed is more "skilled" all around I question that. Fed is more skilled in certain aspects. But "overall" skill his very highly debatable considering Pete was known to demolish guys from both the net and the baseline.

Demolish from the baseline? Hardly. Pete was a great baseliner, especially in his prime, but not an elite one.

FH- Fed was better standing still hitting the inside-out FH, Pete was better on the run with his FH and many can argue its just as much of a bullet is as Fed's is


Here you're just avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that Federers forehand is far superior than Sampras's. I/O and I/I FH? Federer. Overall rally forehand? Federer. Angles, explosiveness and consistency? Federer. CC forehand? Federer. DTL forehand? Federer. FH pass? Federer. Pete had a great running FH although I think Federer's running FH is very underrated. You're so quick to amplify all the categories in which Pete has an advantage, but you won't even concede one of the most obvious disparities.

BH- Neither their strong points but both could do damage with it at times. Kind of a moot comparison.

Did I just hear this? Federers backhand slice is much better than Pete's. Even now it's among the best on tour, barring Murray whose slice is also sick. Pete's BH was also more attackable and he was less deadly on the pass than prime Federer. Put it this way, AT BEST their BH drives are comparable, but given how much better Federer's slice is (which isn't comparable) its definitely not a moot point.

Mental toughness- Pete was certainly more clutch under pressure then Roger. Pete seemed to "welcome" the big points and clutch situations more then Roger who I never felt was ever that comfortable in those situations. At least not as much as Pete was.

At the very most it's close in the mental aspect. While Sampras seemed to keep it together better in grand slam finals, Federers knack for getting over tough loses is almost unparalleled. When Sampras lost to Kafelnikov at RG in '96, it's sort of like he mailed it in on clay after that. For somebody to falter so often on a surface that consistutes 30-40% of the tours tournaments, it's not good. At the end of the day though, I don't think that there's a BIG difference between the two mentally. Heck they're the two most successful players of the open era, and you can't do that if you're not close to unflappable between the ears.


Defense-Roger was superior... But Pete was no slouch on the defensive end tracking those balls down for some running FH winner

To say Pete was no slouch is an understatement, but he's also clearly 2-3 notches below Federer here.

Athleticism- Pete certainly was more of an athlete

This is debatable. There's more to being an athlete than running fast and jumping high. Federer has immaculate footwork, supreme balance and coordination, better stamina (I don't see how this isn't part of the discussion), and a game that is expolosive yet simuletaneously easy on his body. Also, Federer excelled in soccer, cricket, basketball and other racquet sports as a youth. It's at least close.

BTW, if you wanna chalk up Sampras's inferior stamina to it being a genetic trait therefore not fair, fine. Sampras said his shoulder was freakishly flexible, which is one of the primary reasons he had such a formidable serve. Is that not due to genetics too? Or do we only count it when it is negative?

Stamina- Roger due to Pete's blood disorder which caused him to fatigue faster then other guys

Pete had thalassemia minor, a common disorder in mediterranean people, which is far less debilitating than thalassemia major. It's an overused excuse, and it hindered him less than you seem to think. And even if it did hurt him in the stamina category, Federer still deserves credit for being an incredibly fit player. You make it seem as if Federer only wins this by default.

Net Play- Pete by a mile

Yup, no doubt although Federer probably would have been much better than he currently is at the net if he had played in the 90s fast surfaces. Not better than Pete at the net but better than he is now. However, yes, Pete has the clear edge here.

Transition to the net- Again Pete by a mile

No doubt.

Footwork- Federer


May I add -- "by a mile".

Speed-Sampras was faster

Yup.


Fed really only has Pete in a few categories. This place is crazy sometimes.. I swear some people didn't watch Pete in h is prime here.

Its almost as if people here want to compare Roger at his peak to Pete at the end of his career and not the pete of the early-mid 90s

Federer has the forehand, drive BH, BH slice, return, footwork, defense, passing shots, drop shots. Pete has 1st and second serve, FH and BH volleys, overall net play, speed afoot, and overhead. Although the overhead is a moot comparison, because it registers as a minor shock when either of them fail to put away an overhead or miss it. It's about as sure a thing as anything, so its not much of an advantage.

Yes, I saw Sampras play in his prime btw. :)

DragonBlaze
09-29-2012, 07:34 PM
Here you're just avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that Federers forehand is far superior than Sampras's. I/O, I/I FH? Federer. Overall rally forehand? Federer. Angles, explosiveness and consistency? Federer. CC forehand? Federer. DTL forehand? Federer. FH pass? Federer. Pete had a great running FH although I think Federer's running FH is very underrated. You're so quick to amplify all the categories in which Pete has an advantages, but you won't even concede one of the most obvious disparities.

THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.

TheFifthSet
09-29-2012, 07:40 PM
THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.

thanks mate :) to me, having seen both forehands at their respective peaks, theres just no way you can compare the two strokes and not come to the resounding conclusion that fed's is better.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 07:42 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

How does Federer not have a 7/10 BH at the least? Nadal takes every OHBH to pieces. In fact, people who are considered to have better OHBH than Federer often have worse records against Nadal than Federer himself. (Gasquet, Haas, Wawrinka, Almagro etc)

Djokovic never was capable of "terrorizing him of that side". If anything it's the reverse. Murray, I'll give you that one. (even though peak Federer embarrassed him at the AO :lol:) Nalbandian gives him fits but not because of BH to BH exchanges. Old Agassi was Federer's pidgeon. Kuerten didn't exactly crush Federer. He beat Federer before his clay prime on clay. He also has the best OHBH drive of all time. Not a huge suprise really.

How ever, Federer's BH >>> Sampras. Let's not be ridiculous.

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 07:49 PM
How does Federer not have a 7/10 BH at the least? Nadal takes every OHBH to pieces. In fact, people who are considered to have better OHBH than Federer often have worse records against Nadal than Federer himself. (Gasquet, Haas, Wawrinka, Almagro etc)


Yeah since Federer doesnt far trump those players you mentioned in every aspect of the game besides the backhand right. If you actually watch the matches Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Almagro have nowhere near as much trouble off the backhand side vs Nadal as Federer does. They just dont have enough game in most areas or staying power to ever beat Nadal.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 08:11 PM
Yeah since Federer doesnt far trump those players you mentioned in every aspect of the game besides the backhand right. If you actually watch the matches Wawrinka, Gasquet, and Almagro have nowhere near as much trouble off the backhand side vs Nadal as Federer does. They just dont have enough game in most areas or staying power to ever beat Nadal.

I think it's the western grip, really.

TMF
09-29-2012, 09:02 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Fed has a better bh and that's just about everyone have agreed on. He's playing in the most toughest era when the conditions rewards for a two handed bh since the ball bounce high and the courts are slowing down. Despite being successful as he is, his bh would be even better(and suited) in the 90s.

okdude1992
09-29-2012, 09:34 PM
Well it depends how you define athleticism doesn't it. If we are talking pure athleticism (how its conventionally defined) as in strength, explosiveness, speed over a short distance, power, jumping ect its obviously Sampras.

But then again, some people are talking about Tennis athleticism. (as in the specific abilities most suited to tennis) This includes anticipation, quickness, footwork, balance, flexibility, endurance. In this way Federer is more athletic.

Overall, I prefer the first definition more, because more people identify athleticism like that. So Sampras is more "athletic" than Federer in a conventional sense. But Federer has alot more tennis specific athleticism working in his favor. Especially for the modern game of slower courts and longer rallies.

edberg505
09-29-2012, 10:00 PM
Overhead is not even, and Federer does not have better half volleys. Federer probably has a better backhand than Sampras but this idea he has this super great backhand on Planet TW has become some urban legend. He never had one of the great backhands in the game. Just look at how easily Nadal takes it to pieces, and how players with stronger backhands who are infinitely inferior in most every other aspect of the game like Nalbandian, hip butchered Kuerten, an old way past his prime Agassi, Murray, pre 2.0 Djokovic are such a problem for him, mostly since they terrorize him off that side.

Probably? Hahahaha, that is freaking hilarious. And I guess Michael Jordan probably had a better jump shot than Lebron James. You have such contempt for Federer. I don't know why that is. But it hardly renders your comment objective. Look, I was a huge Pete fan. I've seen too many of his matches to count. And in no universe was Federer's backhand "probably" better. It was definitely better in every aspect!

Sid_Vicious
09-29-2012, 10:18 PM
Well it depends how you define athleticism doesn't it. If we are talking pure athleticism (how its conventionally defined) as in strength, explosiveness, speed over a short distance, power, jumping ect its obviously Sampras.

But then again, some people are talking about Tennis athleticism. (as in the specific abilities most suited to tennis) This includes anticipation, quickness, footwork, balance, flexibility, endurance. In this way Federer is more athletic.

Overall, I prefer the first definition more, because more people identify athleticism like that. So Sampras is more "athletic" than Federer in a conventional sense. But Federer has alot more tennis specific athleticism working in his favor. Especially for the modern game of slower courts and longer rallies.

That definition of athleticism is only conventional to mostly Americans who think that 40 yard dashes, vertical leaps, and Bench presses are what athleticism is all about. The second definition is the one that makes sense. The first one is just stupid and makes it seem like only NBA and NFL players qualify as athletes.

This guy is one of the most adored athletes in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi

He is only 5 ft 7 and weighs less than 150 lbs. I guess his 40 million fans on facebook need to look up what a "true athlete" is.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 10:43 PM
That definition of athleticism is only conventional to mostly Americans who think that 40 yard dashes, vertical leaps, and Bench presses are what athleticism is all about. The second definition is the one that makes sense. The first one is just stupid and makes it seem like only NBA and NFL players qualify as athletes.

This guy is one of the most adored athletes in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi

He is only 5 ft 7 and weighs less than 150 lbs. I guess his 40 million fans on facebook need to look up what a "true athlete" is.

Tbf, Messi isn't very athletic. Ronaldo (both of them) and Kaka would be better examples.

Vcore89
09-30-2012, 12:59 AM
Tbf, Messi isn't very athletic. Ronaldo (both of them) and Kaka would be better examples.

I agree on Messi not on par with Ronaldo and Kaka in terms of athleticism but he is great at what he does. Frankly, I give Mascherano my vote of confidence over Messi but Messi always comes up with something when it matters.

Sorry OP for hijacking the thread with off-topic...

dominikk1985
09-30-2012, 01:57 AM
Federer. Sampras might be a much better jumper but overall fed moved much better and did so with much greater endurance.

Feds endurance is greatly underrated because he has that asymmetrical body and no razor abs but he is probably the tennis player with the greatest endurance in tennis history. he never gets tired even in a 5 setter (even now at age 30-unless some very rare occasions) while sampras sometimes had stamina issues (yeah I know he had this blood illness but being healthy is part of the game).

Sabratha
09-30-2012, 02:16 AM
Federer is also decling slower than Sampras did.

Bobby Jr
09-30-2012, 03:23 AM
Did I just hear this? Federers backhand slice is much better than Pete's. Even now it's among the best on tour, barring Murray whose slice is also sick.....
While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

Bobby Jr
09-30-2012, 03:24 AM
THANK YOU! You phrased that much better than I could.
Ditto... it was well put indeed.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 09:19 AM
While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

Youzhny? Lopez? They aren't better than him, but not that inferior either.

droliver
09-30-2012, 01:36 PM
He could dunk a volleyball, not a basketball.

That's not that impressive. I could do that in my teens at 5' 11" and I certainly wasn't a elite specimen. I always though the Sampras jumping overhead was just showing off BTW. Completely superfluous.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 01:41 PM
That's not that impressive. I could do that in my teens at 5' 11" and I certainly wasn't a elite specimen. I always though the Sampras jumping overhead was just showing off BTW. Completely superfluous.

You could almost never successfully lob him.

TheFifthSet
09-30-2012, 01:42 PM
While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

I would definitely take Federers slice over Murrays. It's one of the most consistent shots of his era, and look where it's got him. However, when Murrays feeling it his slice is incredible too. That match against Roddick at Queens, Olympics match vs Fed, even the Wimby match against Fed, it was sick. I'm not saying its better than Federers, but I would venture to say among the top players its Federer and Murray that have the best slices by far.

World Beater
09-30-2012, 04:16 PM
You could almost never successfully lob him.

hewitt, agassi, chang and safin disagree.

Sampras overhead is so overrated, its ridiculous.

The overhead should be a regulation shot..its by no means a weapon, and pete has missed some overheads in crucial situations.

Two that come to mind....against federer at wimbledon, and against corretja at the usopen in the famous match where he puked.

Sampras slam dunk was a total showboat move.

jaggy
09-30-2012, 04:22 PM
Sampras had major cajones but cant say he was all that athletic

90's Clay
09-30-2012, 04:26 PM
hewitt, agassi, chang and safin disagree.

Sampras overhead is so overrated, its ridiculous.

The overhead should be a regulation shot..its by no means a weapon, and pete has missed some overheads in crucial situations.

Two that come to mind....against federer at wimbledon, and against corretja at the usopen in the famous match where he puked.

Sampras slam dunk was a total showboat move.



Yea horribly overrated.. I mean so many guys could do this :shock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ

smoledman
09-30-2012, 04:31 PM
Who can successfuly lob Federer?

dangalak
09-30-2012, 04:52 PM
hewitt, agassi, chang and safin disagree.

Sampras overhead is so overrated, its ridiculous.

The overhead should be a regulation shot..its by no means a weapon, and pete has missed some overheads in crucial situations.

Two that come to mind....against federer at wimbledon, and against corretja at the usopen in the famous match where he puked.

Sampras slam dunk was a total showboat move.

No it isn't.

Do you seriously think I would defend Sampras if he didn't deserve it? Even in matches where he was getting outplayed he spiked some lobs into the ground so decisively, I don't think i have seen many others do it. (the match against Safin comes to mind)

I have watched matches against him wherein he was lobbed by what I would deem decent lobs, only to utterly demolish them. The only guy whom I would consider close to him from the top players is Tsonga. Federer is good too, but not quite as good.

Who can successfuly lob Federer?

More people than Sampras.

World Beater
09-30-2012, 08:07 PM
No it isn't.

Do you seriously think I would defend Sampras if he didn't deserve it? Even in matches where he was getting outplayed he spiked some lobs into the ground so decisively, I don't think i have seen many others do it. (the match against Safin comes to mind)

I have watched matches against him wherein he was lobbed by what I would deem decent lobs, only to utterly demolish them. The only guy whom I would consider close to him from the top players is Tsonga. Federer is good too, but not quite as good.



More people than Sampras.

Well that is your opinion. I happen to disagree.

I watched sampras his entire career, and he botched some overheads that he should not have. The overheads he did get a handle on, he tried to hit as hard as he could - but it doesnt matter how hard you hit it as long as you win the point.


I would say both edberg and rafter were better than sampras when it came to defending the net from the lob. especially edberg - he was amazing - the way he could backpedal and use his flexibilty to get to balls.

For me a good overhead - is one which is reliable and gets the job done with very few mistakes. If the objective is to win points and lose the fewest, i do not see how sampras gets the nod here. Sampras gets style points for sure though - but he does make more mistakes than some other players.

People see sampras showboat some easy overheads, and assume he has the best overhead. He jumps much higher than he needs to on those to win the point.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 08:14 PM
Well that is your opinion. I happen to disagree.

I watched sampras his entire career, and he botched some overheads that he should not have. The overheads he did get a handle on, he tried to hit as hard as he could - but it doesnt matter how hard you hit it as long as you win the point.


I would say both edberg and rafter were better than sampras when it came to defending the net from the lob. especially edberg - he was amazing - the way he could backpedal and use his flexibilty to get to balls.

For me a good overhead - is one which is reliable and gets the job done with very few mistakes. If the objective is to win points and lose the fewest, i do not see how sampras gets the nod here. Sampras gets style points for sure though - but he does make more mistakes than some other players.

People see sampras showboat some easy overheads, and assume he has the best overhead. He jumps much higher than he needs to on those to win the point.

The guys you mentioned were just as good as Sampras.

TMF
09-30-2012, 08:24 PM
Having an electrifying overhead doesn't mean you're the best. If you hit the hardest but miss more often, that doesn't do you any good. What's important is being reliable and have less errors, that's the only thing that count.

smoledman
09-30-2012, 08:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddzHoCcVarA

Tell me that's not a super stylish overhead smash!

smoledman
09-30-2012, 08:36 PM
http://www.timwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Flying-Federer.JPG

Beryl
09-30-2012, 08:39 PM
Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-RogerI'm 186 cm tall (close to Fed in height) and I can dunk on a regulation 10-foot rim. Am I more athletic than Federer? :neutral:

smoledman
09-30-2012, 08:41 PM
More proof of Federer's amazing vertical leap:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/07/03/sports/03wimbledon.1-500.jpg

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2007/sp20070118a2a.jpg

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/01/21/PM_federer_narrowweb__300x452,0.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/17/rogerfederer_narrowweb__300x495,0.jpg

smoledman
09-30-2012, 08:45 PM
I consider Federer the better overall athlete for his abilities with the groundies as well as the serve/forehand/volleys.

World Beater
09-30-2012, 08:52 PM
Sampras might have a slight edge in explosiveness.

But federer trumps sampras in agility by a larger margin.

Federer is so much better than sampras at changing directions.

Pete was great and explosive when running from one side to the other to hit his running fh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U

great example of federer explosiveness both in armspeed, and leg strength - his court coverage - insane

Mike Sams
09-30-2012, 08:54 PM
highly doubt sampras wouldve been able to keep up with nadal in tough 5 setters physically

How do you know Sampras would even need 5 sets? Nadal would have no chance in hell of beating Sampras on true Wimbledon grass and probably no chance even on today's grass. Heck Nadal is getting smacked around by Djokovic and Rosol at Wimbledon. What does that tell you? :lol:

Sid_Vicious
09-30-2012, 09:03 PM
LOL. Nostalgia really is something. Apparently Sampras was completely immune to getting lobbed successfully. :lol:

dominikk1985
10-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Well that is your opinion. I happen to disagree.

I watched sampras his entire career, and he botched some overheads that he should not have. The overheads he did get a handle on, he tried to hit as hard as he could - but it doesnt matter how hard you hit it as long as you win the point.


I would say both edberg and rafter were better than sampras when it came to defending the net from the lob. especially edberg - he was amazing - the way he could backpedal and use his flexibilty to get to balls.

For me a good overhead - is one which is reliable and gets the job done with very few mistakes. If the objective is to win points and lose the fewest, i do not see how sampras gets the nod here. Sampras gets style points for sure though - but he does make more mistakes than some other players.

People see sampras showboat some easy overheads, and assume he has the best overhead. He jumps much higher than he needs to on those to win the point.

one of the best overhead players I have ever seen was wayne arthurs. not a great player overall but his overheads were unreal and he did it of both wings. he would even bounce BH smashes into the stands.

kafelnikov was also very good even though most think of him as a baseliner.

fed_rulz
10-01-2012, 01:15 PM
Well that is your opinion. I happen to disagree.

I watched sampras his entire career, and he botched some overheads that he should not have. The overheads he did get a handle on, he tried to hit as hard as he could - but it doesnt matter how hard you hit it as long as you win the point.


I would say both edberg and rafter were better than sampras when it came to defending the net from the lob. especially edberg - he was amazing - the way he could backpedal and use his flexibilty to get to balls.

For me a good overhead - is one which is reliable and gets the job done with very few mistakes. If the objective is to win points and lose the fewest, i do not see how sampras gets the nod here. Sampras gets style points for sure though - but he does make more mistakes than some other players.

People see sampras showboat some easy overheads, and assume he has the best overhead. He jumps much higher than he needs to on those to win the point.

+1. hype around this needlessly theatrical shot epitomizes the all-fluff and no-substance arguments that many Pete fanbois bring to the table mostly. it's fairly amusing to see fanbois parade the "slam dunk overhead" as one of the shots that Sampras is "better" at.. and also offer it as "proof" that he had the best overhead ever..

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 01:21 PM
+1. hype around this needlessly theatrical shot epitomizes the all-fluff and no-substance arguments that many Pete fanbois bring to the table mostly. it's fairly amusing to see fanbois parade the "slam dunk overhead" as one of the shots that Sampras is "better" at.. and also offer it as "proof" that he had the best overhead ever..

While I agree that Sampras was showboating more often than not, it is still true that he's the best at it. That's why he could afford to showboat about it without suffering too many point-losses :D

Sid_Vicious
10-01-2012, 01:22 PM
+1. hype around this needlessly theatrical shot epitomizes the all-fluff and no-substance arguments that many Pete fanbois bring to the table mostly. it's fairly amusing to see fanbois parade the "slam dunk overhead" as one of the shots that Sampras is "better" at.. and also offer it as "proof" that he had the best overhead ever..

Yup, and Sampras could apparently jump so high that it was "nearly impossible to lob" :lol:

fed_rulz
10-01-2012, 01:23 PM
While I agree that Sampras was showboating more often than not, it is still true that he's the best at it. That's why he could afford to showboat about it without suffering too many point-losses :D

well, he could be the best at it, and is as useful as Federer being the best at the "tweener".

fed_rulz
10-01-2012, 01:25 PM
Yup, and Sampras could apparently jump so high that it was "nearly impossible to lob" :lol:

you keep learning new things about Pete Sampras every day -- never lost a point on serve, always served 2nd serve aces when down 15-40, never lost a game on serve, beat Agassi from the baseline and the net, always hit winners out of his running FH, and of course, the latest, never got lobbed! Any statistics to the contrary are made up by fanbois of the current gen who must've never watched him play.

piece
10-01-2012, 04:35 PM
While the rest of your post was pretty much spot on I'm struggling with how you could be astute enough to make all those comments and then somehow think Murray's slice backhand is even remotely comparable to Federer's. OR have I misread what you meant?

Murray's slice is good as an addition to his 2HBH -solid enough. Federer's, by contrast, is without compare on the tour currently (granted: there may be some 200th ranked player with an arguably better on but with a worse *everything else*). You'd be hard pressed to name someone who outshines him in this department in the last 20 years.

Petzschner might have a better backhand slice than Federer. At least it gave Nadal more trouble (see their match at W 2010) than Federer's ever has, which is saying a lot as Nadal punishes slices more consistently than anyone else I've seen.

dangalak
10-01-2012, 05:17 PM
Petzschner might have a better backhand slice than Federer. At least it gave Nadal more trouble (see their match at W 2010) than Federer's ever has, which is saying a lot as Nadal punishes slices more consistently than anyone else I've seen.

It was on grass early in the tournament. Federer would give him more trouble as well.

Also, it is silly to use one player (Nadal) to determine whose slice is the best.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 07:29 PM
well, he could be the best at it, and is as useful as Federer being the best at the "tweener".

I'm just saying. I don't think it fetches him too many "athlete points" either way.

TheFifthSet
10-01-2012, 07:48 PM
Federer has won 7 Wimbledon titles (3 of them against Roddick). Agassi has won 1.

Well yeah, because he's the much better grasscourter, one of the best of all time. Doesn't necessarily mean he has to be better at everything.

TheFifthSet
10-01-2012, 07:54 PM
hewitt, agassi, chang and safin disagree.

Sampras overhead is so overrated, its ridiculous.

The overhead should be a regulation shot..its by no means a weapon, and pete has missed some overheads in crucial situations.

Two that come to mind....against federer at wimbledon, and against corretja at the usopen in the famous match where he puked.

Sampras slam dunk was a total showboat move.

Agreed. Top players shouldn't miss overheads more than once in a blue moon. It's a putaway shot for the most part, a gimme. It might cost a guy a point here and there, but it won't cost them matches very often. Fed and Sampras, I don't see how somebody could say there's much difference between the two on the overhead. They're automatic with it. It's like in basketball when you compare a 91% free throw shooter versus a 90.7% free throw shooter. They're not supposed to miss, and when they do it's a shocker. If one has the advantage over the other, it's a minute advantage at most.

mr_fro2000
10-01-2012, 08:12 PM
Sticking to the topic ("athletic, not better") i get the sense that people here do not really understand what the term "athletic" implies.

Outside of tennis, who are the most athletic men on the planet, past and present? Some that come to mind... Bo Jackson, Calvin Johnson, Lebron James, Blake Griffin, Mike Tyson, Russel Westbrook, Michael Vick. These are people many would label as 'freaks'. Are they the GOAT in their respective sports? No, not really.

Jordan, Jerry Rice, Muhammad Ali, Kevin Durant, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning... these as a group are much better players than the ones listed above, but are by far lesser athletes (well maybe not Jordan in his prime...)

So please... don't confuse the question at hand. The original question is not who is more skilled, or has better endurance, or conditioning or better footwork or more graceful movements. If we were talking about all that then yes, Fed wins for the most part. BUT we are talking about who is the better "athlete".

And Pete is BY FAR WITHOUT A QUESTION a better athlete than Fed.

NadalDramaQueen
10-01-2012, 08:33 PM
Sticking to the topic ("athletic, not better") i get the sense that people here do not really understand what the term "athletic" implies.

Outside of tennis, who are the most athletic men on the planet, past and present? Some that come to mind... Bo Jackson, Calvin Johnson, Lebron James, Blake Griffin, Mike Tyson, Russel Westbrook, Michael Vick. These are people many would label as 'freaks'. Are they the GOAT in their respective sports? No, not really.

Jordan, Jerry Rice, Muhammad Ali, Kevin Durant, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning... these as a group are much better players than the ones listed above, but are by far lesser athletes (well maybe not Jordan in his prime...)

So please... don't confuse the question at hand. The original question is not who is more skilled, or has better endurance, or conditioning or better footwork or more graceful movements. If we were talking about all that then yes, Fed wins for the most part. BUT we are talking about who is the better "athlete".

And Pete is BY FAR WITHOUT A QUESTION a better athlete than Fed.

Thanks for clearing that up. At first, I was unsure, but then I saw that there was no question (with caps lock on) and have fallen in line.

Federer is underrated as an athlete. If you were to come up with a series of tests (perhaps a decathlon), I can't see Federer getting dominated by Sampras. I guess we'll never know until they both agree to it.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 08:44 PM
iSticking to the topic ("athletic, not better") i get the sense that people here do not really understand what the term "athletic" implies.

Outside of tennis, who are the most athletic men on the planet, past and present? Some that come to mind... Bo Jackson, Calvin Johnson, Lebron James, Blake Griffin, Mike Tyson, Russel Westbrook, Michael Vick. These are people many would label as 'freaks'. Are they the GOAT in their respective sports? No, not really.

Jordan, Jerry Rice, Muhammad Ali, Kevin Durant, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning... these as a group are much better players than the ones listed above, but are by far lesser athletes (well maybe not Jordan in his prime...)

So please... don't confuse the question at hand. The original question is not who is more skilled, or has better endurance, or conditioning or better footwork or more graceful movements. If we were talking about all that then yes, Fed wins for the most part. BUT we are talking about who is the better "athlete".

And Pete is BY FAR WITHOUT A QUESTION a better athlete than Fed.

I have no idea who the better athlete is (which is why I haven't really picked anyone) but, just to give more reason to this thread, what is your criteria for judging how good an athlete a player is?

dangalak
10-01-2012, 08:50 PM
Sticking to the topic ("athletic, not better") i get the sense that people here do not really understand what the term "athletic" implies.

Outside of tennis, who are the most athletic men on the planet, past and present? Some that come to mind... Bo Jackson, Calvin Johnson, Lebron James, Blake Griffin, Mike Tyson, Russel Westbrook, Michael Vick. These are people many would label as 'freaks'. Are they the GOAT in their respective sports? No, not really.

Jordan, Jerry Rice, Muhammad Ali, Kevin Durant, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning... these as a group are much better players than the ones listed above, but are by far lesser athletes (well maybe not Jordan in his prime...)

So please... don't confuse the question at hand. The original question is not who is more skilled, or has better endurance, or conditioning or better footwork or more graceful movements. If we were talking about all that then yes, Fed wins for the most part. BUT we are talking about who is the better "athlete".

And Pete is BY FAR WITHOUT A QUESTION a better athlete than Fed.

Basically, if you're a white guy, don't do sports. :)

Agreed. Top players shouldn't miss overheads more than once in a blue moon. It's a putaway shot for the most part, a gimme. It might cost a guy a point here and there, but it won't cost them matches very often. Fed and Sampras, I don't see how somebody could say there's much difference between the two on the overhead. They're automatic with it. It's like in basketball when you compare a 91% free throw shooter versus a 90.7% free throw shooter. They're not supposed to miss, and when they do it's a shocker. If one has the advantage over the other, it's a minute advantage at most.

The difference is, Sampras ended the point right there more often. Federer doesn't finish them "with extreme prejudice" like Sampras did. :)

mr_fro2000
10-01-2012, 09:11 PM
I have no idea who the better athlete is (which is why I haven't really picked anyone) but, just to give more reason to this thread, what is your criteria for judging how good an athlete a player is?

I would say a combination of quickness, agility, speed, power and jumping ability.

Is Fed's athleticism underrated? I think so. He is a great athlete. But he's simply not on Pete Sampras' (in his prime) level. Just youtube and compare jump smashes... Pete is jumping thru the roof compared to fed.


Basically, if you're a white guy, don't do sports.

Thats just not fair =P. Fine add a Rob Gronkowski, Michael Phelps, maybe Josh Hamilton?

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 09:14 PM
I would say a combination of quickness, agility, speed, power and jumping ability.

Is Fed's athleticism underrated? I think so. He is a great athlete. But he's simply not on Pete Sampras' (in his prime) level. Just youtube and compare jump smashes... Pete is jumping thru the roof compared to fed.




Thats just not fair =P. Fine add a Rob Gronkowski, Michael Phelps, maybe Josh Hamilton?

I really think Federer is quicker and more agile than Sampras, although Sampras has got the better acceleration. Power and jumps go to Sampras. Federer's got more stamina, which should count towards athleticism as well. I think it's close to even, really hard to choose, going by your criteria (and stamina).

World Beater
10-01-2012, 09:41 PM
I really think Federer is quicker and more agile than Sampras, although Sampras has got the better acceleration. Power and jumps go to Sampras. Federer's got more stamina, which should count towards athleticism as well. I think it's close to even, really hard to choose, going by your criteria (and stamina).

using a car analogy...

sampras has slightly more horsepower and 0-25 is faster.

but federer has better handling - being able to manage the turns and changing direction...also accelerating out of turns...stopping and starting..hitting the brakes.

Federer imo is the better athlete for tennis.

RF-17-GOAT
10-02-2012, 02:49 AM
lol lesser athlete lol

0d1n
10-03-2012, 01:47 AM
The "slam dunk" was one of the few Sampras concessions to showboating. I guess if Agassi wouldn't have been so loved for his "star qualities" Sampras would have "slam dunked" much less often as it served no functional purpose most of the time. But...you gotta please that American public...don't ya??
It doesn't make him the best smasher in the world, other people are just as good at that, they just don't bother to do it as often.
If you want a close to impenetrable smash from the 90's, Stich's was one. Being 6 ft 4 in helped, I agree. Yeh...he didn't slam dunk much, but he didn't miss much either. Edberg is another good example.
Regardless, Sampras was an amazing athlete, one of the best in tennis. On the other hand...Federer is one of the best as well.
When I hear people giving Tsonga as an example of speed and athletic ability and dismiss Federer for the same reason...I just think those guys are "reverse racists".

Nostradamus
10-03-2012, 03:21 AM
very honest and candid video from Mr. Federer. he never thought he was going to win any majors, just wanted to have fun.

http://bcove.me/8n5d2tdr

ICanBeSerious
10-03-2012, 06:26 AM
So.. there are people here that think that sampras was more athletic (lol), and faster (rofl) than federer, just because he was ..jumping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld4JRtDwPkI

RF20Lennon
10-03-2012, 06:41 AM
So.. there are people here that think that sampras was more athletic (lol), and faster (rofl) than federer, just because he was ..jumping...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld4JRtDwPkI

I'm not sure yet if I agree but the post was hilarious!!!! :lol:

ICanBeSerious
10-03-2012, 09:16 AM
And what about the BH smashes that fed executes all the time so easily:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/-xdgHYq7i4LQ/TU6N72vTPJI/AAAAAAAAAPY/dwOw141dSp0/f_federer_21_06.jpg

But no...Sampras jumping20cmoffthegroundwithnoapparentreason shows real athletism..

shakes1975
10-03-2012, 11:40 AM
Fed is superior in overall East-West movement (anticipation, footwork, balance, change of direction)

Sampras is superior along the North-South direction (footwork, anticipation, balance, change of direction) while he's also slightly superior in pure, raw speed.

shakes1975
10-03-2012, 11:43 AM
I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.

I disagree that Fed is the more complete player. If you think of a complete game as being composed of baseline + net game, then Sampras is more complete because Sampras' weaker aspect - baseline - is quite superior to Fed' weaker aspect - net-game.

As to who is better when they play each other ? I would pick Sampras, but that's just my opinion.

smoledman
10-03-2012, 11:45 AM
Fed is superior in overall East-West movement (anticipation, footwork, balance, change of direction)

Sampras is superior along the North-South direction (footwork, anticipation, balance, change of direction) while he's also slightly superior in pure, raw speed.

You obviously didn't watch Fed from 02-06.

tennis_pro
10-03-2012, 11:48 AM
Petetards in full force in this thread I see.

Federer is the superior athlete and it's not even close. There is nothing in this area that Sampras does better than Federer, the Swiss moves better, both forward and sideways, has better anticipation, is faster than Sampras (although he's often on economical mode, that's why you don't see him run max speed as often).

It's time to wake up Pete fans. The only 2 areas in which Sampras is better than Fed is the 2nd serve and net game which is expected as the 90's required different set of skills.

smoledman
10-03-2012, 11:49 AM
Petetards in full force in this thread I see.

Federer is the superior athlete and it's not even close.

They obviously didn't watch 2004 Hamburg Federer vs Coria, wow.

NadalAgassi
10-03-2012, 11:50 AM
Federer is the superior athlete and it's not even close.

So Federer would win in a decathalon? Since by definition that would be the best reference to who is the better athlete. I dont see Federer coming close to either Sampras or Nadaon if they were to compete in a decathalon.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
10-03-2012, 11:52 AM
*waits for Sampras fans to bring up thalassemia minor problem which caused no problems.

tennis_pro
10-03-2012, 11:55 AM
So Federer would win in a decathalon? Since by definition that would be the best reference to who is the better athlete. I dont see Federer coming close to either Sampras or Nadaon if they were to compete in a decathalon.

Let's do it the other way round. What makes you think that Sampras would beat Federer in a decathlon?

fed_rulz
10-03-2012, 11:55 AM
I disagree that Fed is the more complete player. If you think of a complete game as being composed of baseline + net game, then Sampras is more complete because Sampras' weaker aspect - baseline - is quite superior to Fed' weaker aspect - net-game.

As to who is better when they play each other ? I would pick Sampras, but that's just my opinion.

Federer's "weaker" net game won him the Wimbledon in 2003, while Pete's "stronger" baseline game won him the FO in ???? please help me out, as I'm having trouble recalling when Pete won the FO ......

NadalAgassi
10-03-2012, 11:58 AM
Let's do it the other way round. What makes you think that Sampras would beat Federer in a decathlon?

He is easily physically stronger (there are 3 throwing events), his leaping ability is greater (there are 2 jumping events), and in terms of raw speed, not overall tennis movement neccessarily, he is as fast or faster, and there are 3 sprinting events. The remaining events are a pole vault and a 1500 metres. I dont see why he wouldnt beat Federer in a decathalon. I also dont see why Nadal wouldnt beat Federer in a decathalon.

tennis_pro
10-03-2012, 12:07 PM
He is easily physically stronger (there are 3 throwing events), his leaping ability is greater (there are 2 jumping events), and in terms of raw speed, not overall tennis movement neccessarily, he is as fast or faster, and there are 3 sprinting events. The remaining events are a pole vault and a 1500 metres. I dont see why he wouldnt beat Federer in a decathalon. I also dont see why Nadal wouldnt beat Federer in a decathalon.

How is Sampras physically stronger? Based on what? As far as I remember Federer can hit both the forehand and backhand stronger and can smack first serves at 125 mph consistently (Sampras wasn't neccessarily throwing in faster serves in his prime). I don't remember Federer grasping for air once in his career and he's 31. When did Sampras have to deal with shoulder height backhands like Federer did?

How is Sampras' leaping ability greater than Federer's? Based on a couple of show-off slam dunks registered on video ? There is absolutely no proof whatsover for these 2 arguements. This is pure speculation.

And Sampras is not faster than Federer. Find me a video in which Sampras is faster than Fed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U and we'll talk

Here are a couple of reasons why Federer is the superior athlete:
1) it's impossible to execute a winning drop shot on Federer
2) check their records on clay to see who'd win the long-distance competition

Let's go on. How is Nadal a better athlete than Federer? Because his muscles are twice as big? Well, doesn't look like it helps him in power, Federer can smack the forehand at will without trying without possessing an arm as big as Nadal's. Looking at how Nadal needs to take 2 minutes between every serve I'm not even sure he'd beat Federer in a "1500".

shakes1975
10-03-2012, 12:12 PM
You obviously didn't watch Fed from 02-06.

I did. And I still believe Sampras was the better in terms of pure speed. But movement is more than just speed.

shakes1975
10-03-2012, 12:23 PM
Federer's "weaker" net game won him the Wimbledon in 2003, while Pete's "stronger" baseline game won him the FO in ???? please help me out, as I'm having trouble recalling when Pete won the FO ......

Fed, like Lendl, Borg, only played S & V at Wim.

Sampras won many, many important baseline points against the best baseliners of his generation - Agassi, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera etc. right from 1993 to 2002.

Also, there is this incorrect notion that clay is the only proof of a great baseline game. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian etc. had great baseline games and yet hardly did well at the FO.

People seem to confuse a steady baseline game as being the better baseline game. Not always. When he needed it, Sampras' baseline game could stand-up to anybody.

tennis_pro
10-03-2012, 12:35 PM
Fed rarely serve-volleyed against Agassi, even during the 2001-2003 timeframe when he played a lot more from the bet. Why is that ? Because he knew that he would be butchered if he tried.

A young teenage Federer was a no match against the rededicated Agassi in his early 30's, whether he serve and volleyed or stayed back.

Fed, like Lendl, Borg, only played S & V at Wim.

Like Sampras was any different. He would come in more on faster surfaces but the majority of times he stayed back, especially pre-1997. That's exactly when he started to commit suicide on clay by serve and volleying which was pretty fun to see when he got passed every time.

Sampras won many, many important baseline points against the best baseliners of his generation - Agassi, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera etc. right from 1993 to 2002.

But more often than not he lost those matches when it was on clay or a slow hard court. Sampras never beat Agassi at the AO or FO, he was consistently owned by Bruguera on clay during his FO reign, Sampras pwned Kafelnikov on hard courts completely but couldn't do s*** against him on clay. Guess in those particular matches he couldn't win the big baseline points:rolleyes:

Also, there is this incorrect notion that clay is the only proof of a great baseline game. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian etc. had great baseline games and yet hardly did well at the FO.[/QUOTE]

Nalbandian reached 2 FO semis, Safin reached a FO semi. I agree that the baseline game is not the only component to succeed on clay but it's a pretty big factor.

People seem to confuse a steady baseline game as being the better baseline game. Not always. When he needed it, Sampras' baseline game could stand-up to anybody.[/QUOTE]

Only when the surface was fast enough for his backhand to hit a winner.

FEDisanAlien
10-03-2012, 12:49 PM
Fed by a miles
Faster ,stronger , more explosive and better stamina
Pete just jumps a bit higher

smoledman
10-03-2012, 12:57 PM
Fed by a light year.

smoledman
10-03-2012, 12:57 PM
I mean will you argue with him?

http://www.freewebs.com/shamik_das/Pictures/Roger-Federer_Melbourne.jpg

Bobby Jr
10-03-2012, 12:59 PM
There's a whole hell of a lot of romantic misremembering when it comes to comparing tennis players of the past to current ones. Even with the video available of Sampras you have to consider the vast, vast majority are of him playing his best - not his average level.

As to whether he or Sampras is the better athlete you have to start with one question: what does "athletic" mean? It means slightly or greatly different things to almost everyone which renders most comparisons pointless.

Notably, the fact Sampras did, on occasion, do cool slam-dunk overheads is a small and borderline irrelevant example with which to really demonstrate him as being a better athlete than Federer.

shakes1975
10-03-2012, 01:06 PM
There's a whole hell of a lot of romantic misremembering when it comes to comparing tennis players of the past to current ones. Even with the video available of Sampras you have to consider the vast, vast majority are of him playing his best - not his average level.

As to whether he or Sampras is the better athlete you have to start with one question: what does "athletic" mean? It means slightly or greatly different things to almost everyone which renders most comparisons pointless.

Notably, the fact Sampras did, on occasion, do cool slam-dunk overheads is a small and borderline irrelevant example with which to really demonstrate him as being a better athlete than Federer.

I agree. Sampras' slamdunk OH does not necessarily imply that he is the better athlete.

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 01:08 PM
There's a whole hell of a lot of romantic misremembering when it comes to comparing tennis players of the past to current ones. Even with the video available of Sampras you have to consider the vast, vast majority are of him playing his best - not his average level.

As to whether he or Sampras is the better athlete you have to start with one question: what does "athletic" mean? It means slightly or greatly different things to almost everyone which renders most comparisons pointless.

Notably, the fact Sampras did, on occasion, do cool slam-dunk overheads is a small and borderline irrelevant example with which to really demonstrate him as being a better athlete than Federer.

True, different people will consider different players more athletic going by different criteria.

smoledman
10-03-2012, 01:30 PM
I agree. Sampras' slamdunk OH does not necessarily imply that he is the better athlete.

Especially when you consider Federer's backhand smash, half volleys and his nuclear defensive abilities.

dangalak
10-03-2012, 02:58 PM
Notably, the fact Sampras did, on occasion, do cool slam-dunk overheads is a small and borderline irrelevant example with which to really demonstrate him as being a better athlete than Federer.

It is incredible how people like to suck up to Federer, even as a fan of him.

Let both of them try out for the NFL and find out who would have the better numbers. It wouldn't be Federer.

Sampras being able to casually jump 30'' + is excellent proof of what kind of athlete he is.

Lemme guess, you think Federer is a better athlete than Russell Westbrook as well. :)

smoledman
10-03-2012, 03:03 PM
It is incredible how people like to suck up to Federer, even as a fan of him.

Let both of them try out for the NFL and find out who would have the better numbers. It wouldn't be Federer.

Sampras being able to casually jump 30'' + is excellent proof of what kind of athlete he is.

Lemme guess, you think Federer is a better athlete than Russell Westbrook as well. :)

So how does vertical leap matter in tennis? Tennis is not the NBA.

You know what does matter in tennis? The ability to hit an overhead backhand smash with pace. The ability to half volley from both wings. The ability to hit monster forehands from anywhere on the court.

tennis_pro
10-03-2012, 03:04 PM
It is incredible how people like to suck up to Federer, even as a fan of him.

Let both of them try out for the NFL and find out who would have the better numbers. It wouldn't be Federer.

Sampras being able to casually jump 30'' + is excellent proof of what kind of athlete he is.

Lemme guess, you think Federer is a better athlete than Russell Westbrook as well. :)

Just because Federer doesn't jump on overheads doesn't mean he can't jump at all.

smoledman
10-03-2012, 03:08 PM
Just because Federer doesn't jump on overheads doesn't mean he can't jump at all.

Of course he jumps as much as is needed, he just doesn't do the NBA slam dunk jump except for that one time against Haas just to prove he could. Federer is "the most interesting man in the world".

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/09/14/headshot---cropped_vert-b425b9d3553d0de2a586b5fb27743ab809088051-s51.jpg

Dark Victory
10-04-2012, 06:12 AM
I watch Pete in 1997, particularly at GS Cup, Paris MS and YEC... I'm watching how incredible his movement is (especially in those awesome-looking black oscillates) and I'm thinking he's the superior athlete...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Bxm23t7osc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVKWNpdd7jk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiQ7VyPkAHE

But then I watch Federer 2005 at Melbourne, Indian Wells and Miami MS, Wimbledon... early 2005 especially, when he moved like flowing water and I'm thinking: he's the superior athlete...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcyUEIt9Ws8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53eaR5xu_FA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmdI3fX5JNc

I dunno. Pete was more athletic in a general, masculine sense. His movement was all "jock." Federer's athleticism is different, though in 2005 I think it was more raw and was closer to Pete's type of athleticism.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 06:39 AM
So how does vertical leap matter in tennis? Tennis is not the NBA.

You know what does matter in tennis? The ability to hit an overhead backhand smash with pace. The ability to half volley from both wings. The ability to hit monster forehands from anywhere on the court.

Look at the tread title, genius. Does it ask: "Who is better at things that matter in tennis"? No because we all know that is Federer.

It asks "Who is the better athlete?". And being able to jump out of the gym is a pretty big indicator of athleticism.

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 07:06 AM
Look at the tread title, genius. Does it ask: "Who is better at things that matter in tennis"? No because we all know that is Federer.

It asks "Who is the better athlete?". And being able to jump out of the gym is a pretty big indicator of athleticism.

and so is being able to play 5+ hr matches barely breaking a sweat. Here is the thing: Federer can jump as much as Sampras -- some photos in this thread do demonstrate that. In addition to that, he does demonstrate another crucial facet of athleticism -- stamina, which Pete did not.

GSM Federer.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:08 AM
and so is being able to play 5+ hr matches barely breaking a sweat. Here is the thing: Federer can jump as much as Sampras -- some photos in this thread do demonstrate that. In addition to that, he does demonstrate another crucial facet of athleticism -- stamina, which Pete did not.

GSM Federer.

What a joke.

Do you seriously think people would claim Sampras jumps higher if it wasn't the case.

Bottonline, it doesn't matter who you think is more athletic, but your line of "what matters for tennis is important" is nonsense since I, the OP, determine what this thread is about.

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 07:17 AM
What a joke.

Do you seriously think people would claim Sampras jumps higher if it wasn't the case.

Bottonline, it doesn't matter who you think is more athletic, but your line of "what matters for tennis is important" is nonsense since I, the OP, determine what this thread is about.

you are the joke here -- People also claim it's better to lose to journeymen than to your rival. on all fronts, you got pwned because Federer leads the poll by almost 3:1. do you really think people would be saying that if wasn't the case :twisted:?

I never mentioned "tennis-specific" qualities. you dismissed Pete vs Nadal comparison due to stamina; Federer has the upper hand in stamina as well vs Pete.

plus, it's your fault for not defining what you mean by athletic.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:20 AM
you are the joke here -- People also claim it's better to lose to journeymen than to your rival. on all fronts, you got pwned because Federer leads the poll by almost 3:1. do you really think people would be saying that if wasn't the case :twisted:?

I never mentioned "tennis-specific" qualities. you dismissed Pete vs Nadal comparison due to stamina; Federer has the upper hand in stamina as well vs Pete.

plus, it's your fault for not defining what you mean by athletic.

I made this thread because i didn't know in the first place. How does this own me? :confused:

I dismissed Nadal because he is almost as explosive as Sampras with much better stamina. While Federer is superior in stamina as well, he is clearly inferior in explosiveness. That is why I wasn't sure about these two.

Your error lies in trying to change the thread topic instead of giving a real answer.

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 07:23 AM
I made this thread because i didn't know in the first place. How does this own me? :confused:

I dismissed Nadal because he is almost as explosive as Sampras with much better stamina. While Federer is superior in stamina as well, he is clearly inferior in explosiveness. That is why I wasn't sure about these two.

Your error lies in trying to change the thread topic instead of giving a real answer.

"explosiveness" is a vague term. what do you mean by that?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:37 AM
"explosiveness" is a vague term. what do you mean by that?

Speed, acceleration, jumping ability, power. Essentially, force in a short time. :)

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 07:51 AM
Speed, acceleration, jumping ability, power. Essentially, force in a short time. :)

Do you have any FACTS to back up your claims? I mean any hard evidence that Sampras is faster/has better acceleration or jumps higher?

dangalak
10-04-2012, 07:53 AM
Do you have any FACTS to back up your claims? I mean any hard evidence that Sampras is faster/has better acceleration or jumps higher?

.............:?

Good God just get out of here.

How about using your eyes, genius.

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 08:03 AM
Speed, acceleration, jumping ability, power. Essentially, force in a short time. :)

thank you. now we can get somewhere.

using my eyes:
speed -- Federer (evidence: 10x better defense)
acceleration -- Federer (evidence: near impossible to hit drop shots, or winners in general. ability to get to seemingly impossible balls, exceeded only by Nadal and Djokovic)
jumping ability -- about even
power -- Federer (evidence: hits FH and BH consistently harder than Sampras)
force in a short time -- Federer (this one is not even close. Federer is the master of hitting winners from seemingly impossible and defensive positions).

combined with better stamina, you have Federer being a clear winner, as the poll results also indicate. As you rightly noted, people wouldn't be saying so if it wasn't true.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 08:08 AM
thank you. now we can get somewhere.

using my eyes:
speed -- Federer (evidence: 10x better defense)
acceleration -- Federer (evidence: near impossible to hit drop shots, or winners in general. ability to get to seemingly impossible balls, exceeded only by Nadal and Djokovic)
jumping ability -- about even
power -- Federer (evidence: hits FH and BH consistently harder than Sampras)
force in a short time -- Federer (this one is not even close. Federer is the master of hitting winners from seemingly impossible and defensive positions).

combined with better stamina, you have Federer being a clear winner, as the poll results also indicate. As you rightly noted, people wouldn't be saying so if it wasn't true.

http://defenestradordeornitorrincos.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/facepalm.gif

Seriously, this is a joke, you cannot possibly be this way.

I guess Federer is also faster than Blake, since he is a better defender. :lol:

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 08:11 AM
http://defenestradordeornitorrincos.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/facepalm.gif

Seriously, this is a joke, you cannot possibly be this way.

I guess Federer is also faster than Blake, since he is a better defender. :lol:

so what metric would you use to judge "speed" ?

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 08:26 AM
.............:?

Good God just get out of here.

How about using your eyes, genius.

My eyes tell me that Federer's a better athelete. See we got to a dead end, genius. LOL

I want hard evidence that Sampras is superior in this area, stats, points, whatever. All you got is a faulty sentimental memory which tells you that Sampras from the get go is better than Federer in everything including cooking, scuba diving and drinking.

Here's one video showing Federer's speed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U Use your eyes, please and find me a video showing Sampras superior speed.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 09:08 AM
thank you. now we can get somewhere.

using my eyes:
speed -- Federer (evidence: 10x better defense)

Yes, because "10 times better defense" is ALL speed. It has nothing to do with anticipation, footwork, balance, defensive shotmaking.

acceleration -- Federer (evidence: near impossible to hit drop shots, or winners in general. ability to get to seemingly impossible balls, exceeded only by Nadal and Djokovic)

Genius, who the hell hits dropshots against a serve and volleyer? You were trying to pin him to the baseline.

jumping ability -- about even

:lol:

power -- Federer (evidence: hits FH and BH consistently harder than Sampras)

Oh my God....

Yes that has nothing to do with Sampras not having CONSISTENT groundstrokes.

Also, by some strange coincidence, Sampras served about 15 mph harder, with the same precision and the same motion.

force in a short time -- Federer (this one is not even close. Federer is the master of hitting winners from seemingly impossible and defensive positions).

What the hell are you blabbering about?

combined with better stamina, you have Federer being a clear winner, as the poll results also indicate. As you rightly noted, people wouldn't be saying so if it wasn't true.

It isn't the same, genius. Overall athleticism is hard to quantify. It is visible with the naked eye that Sampras was a far better leaper than Federer and something that literally nobody but you denies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZmRzR8BYaHc#t=40s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UwSH43OVUPE#t=760s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OUfv3K1ctSM#t=38s

dangalak
10-04-2012, 09:11 AM
My eyes tell me that Federer's a better athelete. See we got to a dead end, genius. LOL

I want hard evidence that Sampras is superior in this area, stats, points, whatever. All you got is a faulty sentimental memory which tells you that Sampras from the get go is better than Federer in everything including cooking, scuba diving and drinking.

Here's one video showing Federer's speed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U Use your eyes, please and find me a video showing Sampras superior speed.

That isn't a normal tv ratio. He looks twice as slow in the normal ratio.

Seriously, this is where everyone that expected even a slight amount of impartiality from this part of the forum needs to give up all hope.

How deluded do you have to believe that a guy like Federer is faster than SAMPRAS? I mean my GOD.

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 09:35 AM
That isn't a normal tv ratio. He looks twice as slow in the normal ratio.

Seriously, this is where everyone that expected even a slight amount of impartiality from this part of the forum needs to give up all hope.

How deluded do you have to believe that a guy like Federer is faster than SAMPRAS? I mean my GOD.

That's exactly the response I was expecting from a ***********, instead of posting a video proving me wrong you throw in "you're deluded".

Well if you say so. I guess those 108 other people who voted for Federer know nothing as well.

edberg505
10-04-2012, 09:38 AM
That isn't a normal tv ratio. He looks twice as slow in the normal ratio.

Seriously, this is where everyone that expected even a slight amount of impartiality from this part of the forum needs to give up all hope.

How deluded do you have to believe that a guy like Federer is faster than SAMPRAS? I mean my GOD.

LOL, you make it seems as if the disparity between their speed is huge. From the way you are making it sound; it's as if Sampras is has Nadal like speed and Federer has Karlovic speed. I mean c'mon. This is like arguing which twin looks better. I honestly think the difference is negligible.

I mean how can you say that this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcVHvh55bP0&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s isn't fast?

or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R7NVAHW4Ro

10is
10-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Especially when you consider Federer's backhand smash...

Enough said!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjNGVz9lIr8

:-D

smoledman
10-04-2012, 09:46 AM
Federer is explosive but does it in a way that suggests flowing water. Remember David Foster Wallace called his forehand a "great liquid whip". Nobody ever used those adjectives with Sampras.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 09:53 AM
That's exactly the response I was expecting from a ***********, instead of posting a video proving me wrong you throw in "you're deluded".

I am a ******* :lol:

LOL, you make it seems as if the disparity between their speed is huge. From the way you are making it sound; it's as if Sampras is has Nadal like speed and Federer has Karlovic speed. I mean c'mon. This is like arguing which twin looks better. I honestly think the difference is negligible.

I mean how can you say that this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcVHvh55bP0&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s isn't fast?

or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R7NVAHW4Ro

Sorry, dude, but not even close. Why would you pick examples from Fed's later year. He was much faster. Sampras was about as fast as Nadal is.

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 09:57 AM
Sorry, dude, but not even close. Why would you pick examples from Fed's later year. He was much faster. Sampras was about as fast as Nadal is.

You're telling us that Sampras was about as fast as this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgusk4Vn4Ek

The only players that ecome close to Nadal's speed are Borg and Chang. Even Hewitt wasn't that fast and he surely was faster than Sampras.

10is
10-04-2012, 10:00 AM
Why would you pick examples from Fed's later year.

He's right. If you people want to demonstrate Federer's peak athleticism why choose matches from his post-prime period?

edberg505
10-04-2012, 10:04 AM
I am a ******* :lol:



Sorry, dude, but not even close. Why would you pick examples from Fed's later year. He was much faster. Sampras was about as fast as Nadal is.

LOL, well that about concludes this little colloquy.

What I learned today. Pete Sampras = "Fastest Man Alive".

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:06 AM
You're telling us that Sampras was about as fast as this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgusk4Vn4Ek

The only players that ecome close to Nadal's speed are Borg and Chang. Even Hewitt wasn't that fast and he surely was faster than Sampras.

Pretty sure Hewitt was at least as quick as Nadal. :lol:

Also, you are massively underestimating guys like Monfils, Blake and Phau, if you think only Chang and Borg were on Nadal's level.

Also, Nadal started really early, read Davydenko well.

At least one has to admit that Sampras accelerated with the best of them. His 0-60 was unsurpassed.

edberg505
10-04-2012, 10:07 AM
He's right. If you people want to demonstrate Federer's peak athleticism why choose matches from his post-prime period?

Because that was 3 years ago and I thought he was pretty fast then. It is crazy how some people raise Sampras to deity like status, presumbably because they assume some probably didn't see him play. I've seen them both play. It kinda makes me wonder if in 15 years or so if people will be doing the same to Federer. Sure, I've seen Federer play. He was so fast he could beat Usain Bolt running backwards with a beer in both hands.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:08 AM
LOL, well that about concludes this little colloquy.

What I learned today. Pete Sampras = "Fastest Man Alive".

Is it possible that you are overestimating Nadal's quickness? I already admitted that Nadal is a better athlete than Sampras ever was, since he had the at best equivalent speed but clearly inferior stamina.

edberg505
10-04-2012, 10:10 AM
You're telling us that Sampras was about as fast as this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgusk4Vn4Ek

The only players that ecome close to Nadal's speed are Borg and Chang. Even Hewitt wasn't that fast and he surely was faster than Sampras.

Blasphemy, Pete could run rings around Hewitt. LOL. Yes, that statement is exploding with sarcasm.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:14 AM
Blasphemy, Pete could run rings around Hewitt. LOL. Yes, that statement is exploding with sarcasm.

Seriously, I have been a ******* since forever. What is wrong in saying Sampras was as fast as Hewitt? It's like I compared him to Monfils. :lol:

Maybe he was slower than Hewitt, but he certainly was faster than Federer.

EDIT: If you don't like what I say, care to name some players Pete was faster than? :)

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 10:15 AM
Is it possible that you are overestimating Nadal's quickness? I already admitted that Nadal is a better athlete than Sampras ever was, since he had the at best equivalent speed but clearly inferior stamina.

So you use different standards for Federer (saying for instance that Sampras jumped higher) but completely ignore them in the Nadal-Sampras comparison as you give a walkover to Nadal? Well how do you prove that Nadal can jump as high as Sampras? I mean come on, you're losing it.

If you base your final judgment on endunrace well what would you know I don't remember seeing Federer grasp for air once, I don't remember him losing a 5th set because he was tired, every time he was either outplayed or had a mental letdown. Sampras was dead tired in a 5th set a lot of the times, especially later on in his career.

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 10:17 AM
Pretty sure Hewitt was at least as quick as Nadal. :lol:

Also, you are massively underestimating guys like Monfils, Blake and Phau, if you think only Chang and Borg were on Nadal's level.


No to all of that, other than Monfils if you are talking on a track only (on a tennis court nowhere close).

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:18 AM
So you use different standards for Federer (saying for instance that Sampras jumped higher) but completely ignore them in the Nadal-Sampras comparison as you give a walkover to Nadal? Well how do you prove that Nadal can jump as high as Sampras? I mean come on, you're losing it.

If you base your final judgment on endunrace well what would you know I don't remember seeing Federer grasp for air once.

I don't think Nadal jumps as high as Sampras, but he is as fast or faster AND has much better stamina. Equal in one area and vastly superior in the other.

However, Federer is clearly inferior in one area and vastly superior in the other which is why I thought of making this thread.

What a terrible idea that was. :(

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:19 AM
No to all of that, other than Monfils if you are talking on a track only (on a tennis court nowhere close).

Really? Blake not faster than Nadal. :lol:

What do you think about Djokovic, does he compare to Nadal?

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 10:25 AM
I don't think Nadal jumps as high as Sampras, but he is as fast or faster AND has much better stamina. Equal in one area and vastly superior in the other.

However, Federer is clearly inferior in one area and vastly superior in the other which is why I thought of making this thread.

What a terrible idea that was. :(

Ok, tell us again exactly what criteria you use to determine athleticism. Cause it seems to me that you just handed Nadal the "better athelete than Sampras" trophy without going through all the individual points (like you did in the Federer-Sampras comparison). Instead, you called Nadal a better athlete because he's faster than Sampras. I'd like to remind you that speed fills in like 1/10 of the full notion of what athleticism is. Among others you mentioned power, ain't that right?

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 10:26 AM
Really? Blake not faster than Nadal. :lol:

What do you think about Djokovic, does he compare to Nadal?

No Blake is definitely not faster than Nadal. You seem to think any player who is very fast is as fast or faster than Nadal which is purely delusional. Even Blake didnt even try to outrun Nadal in their early matches, he knew his only hope to win was to outhit and that he did. Hewitt is faster than Blake but also not as fast as Nadal. Blake had great speed for someone who wasnt even a grinder or good defensive player overall, but that is it. Then again I am talking to someone who thinks Ana freaking Ivanovic had a more "powerful" forehand than Steffi Graf and served at 125 mph at her peak, LOL!

Djokovic might be as fast as Nadal on hard courts only, definitely not on clay or grass IMO. I am talking peak Nadal, Nadal has already lost some speed with years of grinding and age.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:29 AM
Ok, tell us again exactly what criteria you use to determine athleticism. Cause it seems to me that you just handed Nadal the "better athelete than Sampras" trophy without going through all the individual points (like you did in the Federer-Sampras comparison). Instead, you called Nadal a better athlete because he's faster than Sampras. I'd like to remind you that speed is fills like 1/10 of the full notion of what athleticism is. Among others you mentioned power, ain't that right?

His shots may be less powerful, but then against, he doesn't hit flat 99% of the time, so getting an estimation on his power from his shots is difficult.

I think with Nadal, a comparison is really futile. He seems to be on a level of speed where I cannot say that Sampras is faster. He is more or less just as explosive as Sampras AND more enduring. Federer is also superior in endurance, but not in speed, acceleration, hence why it's not crystal clear with him.

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 10:31 AM
His shots may be less powerful, but then against, he doesn't hit flat 99% of the time, so getting an estimation on his power from his shots is difficult.

I think with Nadal, a comparison is really futile. He seems to be on a level of speed where I cannot say that Sampras is faster. He is more or less just as explosive as Sampras AND more enduring. Federer is also superior in endurance, but not in speed, acceleration, hence why it's not crystal clear with him.

So who's got more power? Federer or Sampras? (just please don't tell me that Sampras' serve was 15 mph faster than Federer's cause that's a lie)

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 10:34 AM
So who's got more power? Federer or Sampras?

You seem to be comparing only their shots. Most of the power from shots comes from technique, not strength. Just look at Justine Henin who probably would bench press the 250th most on the WTA tour yet was one of the hardest hitters at her peak. One just looks at Sampras and Federer and it would be a miracle if Federer was somehow physically stronger.

Anyway as far as power goes I thought both at their best Sampras was considered the more explosive player overall. You talk about Federer having better groundstrokes, but that is based on alot of factors- angles, deception, variety, placement, directional control, consistency. Sampras's drive forehands were every bit as explosive, maybe even a bit more, even with Federer's being better overall. Sampras's serve was much more heavy and penetrating than Federer's no contest in that regard. You cant compare just by mph (which Sampras is a bit higher in on average anyway) since the mphs of serves have been rising greatly for reasons hard to explain, Brenda Schultz for instance serving at 130 mph to retake the womens serve speed World record in her mid 30s, way faster than she had ever managed in her prime, how toe explain that. Sampras's volleys and overheads also had more bite on them. Sampras in his era was considered one of it not the biggest overall hitter in the game. Federer was never considered the biggest overall hitter in the game. In his own era people talk about Soderling, Del Potro, Berdych as being bigger hitters.

dangalak
10-04-2012, 10:34 AM
No Blake is definitely not faster than Nadal. You seem to think any player who is very fast is as fast or faster than Nadal which is purely delusional. Even Blake didnt even try to outrun Nadal in their early matches, he knew his only hope to win was to outhit and that he did. Hewitt is faster than Blake but also not as fast as Nadal. Blake had great speed for someone who wasnt even a grinder or good defensive player overall, but that is it. Then again I am talking to someone who thinks Ana freaking Ivanovic had a more "powerful" forehand than Steffi Graf and served at 125 mph at her peak, LOL!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves#Women :)

Also, maybe Blake didn't try to grind because he couldn't hit 10 consecutive shots into the court and was better off being aggressive, since he had incredible power and early ballstriking. Why on earth would he grind against Nadal in the first place? To allow him to pick on his backhand? :lol:

NadalAgassi
10-04-2012, 10:39 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_recorded_tennis_serves#Women :)

Also, maybe Blake didn't try to grind because he couldn't hit 10 consecutive shots into the court and was better off being aggressive, since he had incredible power and early ballstriking. Why on earth would he grind against Nadal in the first place? To allow him to pick on his backhand? :lol:

So her fastest ever serve was 124 and this equates to hitting 125+ serves in her prime? :lol: By your logic I could say Nadal hits 135+ serves in his prime, since at the 2010 U.S Open he had some serves that reached 135. Ana has probably hit what, 6 serves in her career even over 120. Also if this isnt proof of the belief radar guns are juiced today I dont know what is, since even the blind can see Graf in her prime had a more powerful serve than the likes of Ivanovic (and I am no Graf fan btw, most on this forum regard me a Graf hater). BTW Graf herself was recording serves about 10 mph faster in 1999 as a gimpy old lady soon to retire, as she had been at her peak in 1995-1996, LOL!

Try starting a poll who is faster Blake or Nadal and see how that turns out.

fed_rulz
10-04-2012, 10:40 AM
....
It isn't the same, genius. Overall athleticism is hard to quantify. It is visible with the naked eye that Sampras was a far better leaper than Federer and something that literally nobody but you denies.



LMAO!! so given that folks on this thread disagree with you 3:1, you do concede that Federer is the better athlete? seems like your "naked" eye needs some clothing.. btw, this very thread has some pictures that disagree with you that Sampras was the "far better" leaper.

The way I see it, you started a thread with a poll, and you're throwing a tantrum now because the results disagree (by a vast margin) with your perception.

tennis_pro
10-04-2012, 10:42 AM
You seem to be comparing only their shots. Most of the power from shots comes from technique, not strength. Just look at Justine Henin who probably would bench press the 250th most on the WTA tour yet was one of the hardest hitters at her peak. One just looks at Sampras and Federer and it would be a miracle if Federer was somehow physically stronger.

What more data can I use? Federer hits his groundstrokes harder and consistently harder while Sampras would loop the backhand 3-4 times before going for a killer shot, serves just as fast (Sampras rarely hit his serve over 125 mph). I agree he has less sting on the volleys but that's expected as Sampras visited the net a lot more often than Federer did/does. You can't just say "one looks at them and thinks it would be a miracle if Federer was somehow physically stronger", it's just impossible to predict how they would fare in competition. Just because Fed doesn't have Schwarzenegger' stature it doesn't mean he's not stronger than Sampras.

Anyway as far as power goes I thought both at their best Sampras was considered the more explosive player overall. You talk about Federer having better groundstrokes, but that is based on alot of factors- angles, deception, variety, placement, directional control, consistency. Sampras's drive forehands were every bit as explosive, maybe even a bit more, even with Federer's being better overall. Sampras's serve was much more heavy and penetrating than Federer's no contest in that regard. His volleys and overheads also had more bite on them.

Once again, how do you rate explosiveness? Just because Sampras didn't grind his match as much as Federer does at times and went for a killer shot earlier it doesn't mean that he's more explosive. Is Del Potro more explosive than Federer as well?