PDA

View Full Version : Are you rooting for Roger to break Pete's records?


Rodeo
02-01-2006, 10:19 PM
Are you rooting for Roger to break Pete's records? Or you want Sampras to remain as the Greatest Tennis player of All Time. Be Honest!:D

VictorS.
02-01-2006, 11:24 PM
I guess being an American.....in a way, I'm rooting against Federer. He's a heck of a champion and carries himself with so much class. However, I guess I grew up with Pete being the player I looked up to.

Records though are meant to be broken. And at the rate he's going, I think Federer will break the record...barring any major injuries. I think his feet right now are his biggest concern.

Warriorroger
02-02-2006, 12:37 AM
I guess being an American.....in a way, I'm rooting against Federer. He's a heck of a champion and carries himself with so much class. However, I guess I grew up with Pete being the player I looked up to.

Records though are meant to be broken. And at the rate he's going, I think Federer will break the record...barring any major injuries. I think his feet right now are his biggest concern.

And Roger Federer's feet are my biggest fetish.

Shabazza
02-02-2006, 03:38 AM
Yes, I am!

babbette
02-02-2006, 03:52 AM
naah Pete forever!!:p

slice bh compliment
02-02-2006, 03:58 AM
So far 16 yesses and 10 nos.
The numbers might be flipped if/when Roger is a 5-Year number 1 and has 12 or 13 Slams.

eric draven
02-02-2006, 05:34 AM
...break the record again as others have said barring major injury. The amazing thing about Pete's record is that he did it having never won the French, which I think Roger has a chance to do. He also did it with his blood condition which would have limited most high level athletes. He fought through major back problems (herniated disk) and overall loss of speed towards the end of his career. Anyone remember how in the sixth year of being #1 he asked Boris Becker for his wild card at a tournament to compile the points? He wanted nothing else than to eat, sleep and breathe being number one. I see Roger much the same way, utterly focused and talented beyond compare. I also think Roger paces himself very well through the year not playing to much or training in a way that will break him down in the future.

Docalex007
02-02-2006, 06:13 AM
Go ninja Go ninja Go - Go ninja Go ninja Go! Go! Go! Go! Go!

variable data:

ninja = Federer

heartman
02-02-2006, 06:49 AM
I like watching Federer play. If he breaks records, so be it. He's damn good and provides a healthy role model for younger players - well, older players too. Tennis needs his skill and attitude.

random1
02-02-2006, 07:00 AM
Are you rooting for Roger to break Pete's records? Or you want Sampras to remain as the Greatest Tennis player of All Time. Be Honest!:D
I'm rooting for Fed, because in my opinion, Sampras isn't GOAT, and it'd be nice to somewhat definitively settle the argument.

rilokiley
02-02-2006, 07:00 AM
I'm rooting for Roger to break every single tennis record there is.

Surecatch
02-02-2006, 07:02 AM
Absolutely am rooting for Rog. Records are made to be broken. Besides, I personally believe that Fed is better right now than Pete ever was.

vllockhart
02-02-2006, 07:10 AM
I'd be happy either way. We didn't think there'd be someone who could threaten it this quickly. I'd have liked to see it be around for longer. But, if Roger doesn't do it, then he may underachieve and that wouldn't be good either.

Buuurnz
02-02-2006, 07:28 AM
I hope he breaks the record, he is a heck of a nice guy and a great player!

8PAQ
02-02-2006, 07:50 AM
I'm rooting for Roger to break every single tennis record there is.

Same here :D

This way in the future there won't be any more pointless threads about who is GOAT. The choice will simply be too obvious for anyone to argue about it.

tennis-n-sc
02-02-2006, 07:53 AM
What happens will happen. Existing records are the goals of every athlete. I also thought Pete's record would last longer, but hey, when I see Roger on the court it is hard not imagine him breaking the record. The bar is constantly being raised. All hail!!

opiate
02-02-2006, 07:53 AM
Same here :D

This way in the future there won't be any more pointless threads about who is GOAT. The choice will simply be too obvious for anyone to argue about it.

I wouldn't bet on it. Even if he did surpass Pete Sampras's record (and any other record there is), there will still be people who said that such an accomplishment is brought to you by the words "WEAK" and "FIELD". yadda yadda yadda.

You'll never win, I guess.

But hey! I don't have qualms in enjoying what tennis Fed has to offer. Weak field or not.

Marius_Hancu
02-02-2006, 10:11 AM
I respect both of them too much to root for any of them more than for the other:-)

quest01
02-02-2006, 10:33 AM
Im going to say no, as an american i would like to see sampras retain the record. Federer has a great chance in breaking it and most likely will but as an american i want to see an american on top.

cruise30166
02-02-2006, 12:02 PM
Sampras, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Laver & Federer. Nice list of great players. Records are made and most will be broken eventually. Now for the really tough one. I always wanted Borg, Sampras or McEnroe to win the true Grand Slam (all 4 majors in the SAME calendar year) but they couldn't quite do it! Now, if Federer can pull that one off then he'll be considered as one of the greatest of all time bar none! Can Federer do that????? That would be something.... I'm watching to see if he can do it......

Aykhan Mammadov
02-02-2006, 12:07 PM
Yes. I'm honest.

Freedom
02-02-2006, 12:08 PM
Yay Federer!

devilish_duke
02-02-2006, 12:10 PM
Definitely, Fed all da way!!!

slice bh compliment
02-02-2006, 12:10 PM
Yes, and this is really not an American/European.Swiss/jingoistic thing.
Even most Pete fans want to see a record broken in their lifetime, right in front of their eyes.

Freedom
02-02-2006, 12:14 PM
Yeah, this has nothing to do with nationality. I'm rooting for Fed, but not because I'm hating Bush...

Virtuous
02-02-2006, 12:30 PM
Absolutely. Stay the course, Roger!

pound cat
02-02-2006, 12:47 PM
I'll be rooting for roger to keep from having a nervous breakdown while pursuing this goal. He's been a wee bit nervous and shaky in his play lately and I wouldn't be surprised if it got worse. Keep cool Roger. All that's at stake here is a world record.

156MPHserve
02-02-2006, 12:55 PM
Can't help but think sometimes, that Pete's runs took so much more effort, so many people that could hand him the platter on a good day.

Federer just seems to be on cruise control, I want Pete to keep his record. Common Nadal! You can stop him!

pound cat
02-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Safin has a few more Slams in him too...that darn knee.

Serena2
02-02-2006, 01:20 PM
"records are there to be broken"

legolas
02-02-2006, 01:23 PM
oh yeah, go roger

AAAA
02-02-2006, 01:36 PM
The question becomes unimportant if Federer wins every major at least twice.
In 2006 Federer will want to do better at the FO than last year plus he'd want to defend and retain his Wimbledon and USO titles. God willing 2006 could be another great year for Roger Federer.

Go Roger Federer

williams planet
02-02-2006, 04:23 PM
Pete Sampras' 14 Slams vs. Federer's 7 Slams.
Pete Sampras' 7 Wimbledons vs. Federer's 3 Wimbledons.
Pete Sampras' 7 Hardcourt Slams vs. Federer's 4 Hardcourt Slams.
Pete Sampras' 5 U.S. Opens on Hardcourts vs. Federer's 2 U.S. Opens on hardcourts.
Pete Sampras' 6 years ranked #1 vs. Federer's 2 years ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 286 weeks ranked #1 vs. Federer's 122 weeks ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 5 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships vs. Federer's 2 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships.
Pete Sampras' 8 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles.
Pete Sampras' 11 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals.
Pete Sampras' 12 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 3.5 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles.

Chadwixx
02-02-2006, 05:17 PM
Pete Sampras' 14 Slams vs. Federer's 7 Slams.
Pete Sampras' 7 Wimbledons vs. Federer's 3 Wimbledons.
Pete Sampras' 7 Hardcourt Slams vs. Federer's 4 Hardcourt Slams.
Pete Sampras' 5 U.S. Opens on Hardcourts vs. Federer's 2 U.S. Opens on hardcourts.
Pete Sampras' 6 years ranked #1 vs. Federer's 2 years ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 286 weeks ranked #1 vs. Federer's 122 weeks ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 5 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships vs. Federer's 2 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships.
Pete Sampras' 8 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles.
Pete Sampras' 11 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals.
Pete Sampras' 12 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 3.5 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles.

Lets not forget the most important fact, 1-0 fed in head to head match play.

opiate
02-02-2006, 05:51 PM
Pete Sampras' 14 Slams vs. Federer's 7 Slams.
Pete Sampras' 7 Wimbledons vs. Federer's 3 Wimbledons.
Pete Sampras' 7 Hardcourt Slams vs. Federer's 4 Hardcourt Slams.
Pete Sampras' 5 U.S. Opens on Hardcourts vs. Federer's 2 U.S. Opens on hardcourts.
Pete Sampras' 6 years ranked #1 vs. Federer's 2 years ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 286 weeks ranked #1 vs. Federer's 122 weeks ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 5 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships vs. Federer's 2 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships.
Pete Sampras' 8 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles.
Pete Sampras' 11 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals.
Pete Sampras' 12 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 3.5 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles.

Roger Federer... still playing.
Pete Sampras... still retired.

armand
02-02-2006, 05:56 PM
Someone should make a poll: 'Do you hope Federer's rivals get some game so that he will not have a ridiculously easy time in surpassing not only Sampras' 14 slams but going for Court's all time record of 24?'

Chadwixx
02-02-2006, 06:00 PM
Someone should make a poll: 'Do you hope Federer's rivals get some game so that he will not have a ridiculously easy time in surpassing not only Sampras' 14 slams but going for Court's all time record of 24?'

Two of fed's weak rivals (hewitt, safin) made pete look like a club player in his own backyard. I wouldnt be so quick to discredit the players of today. If you think chang could beat nadal your crazy. Change served like 80 mph, and hit his ground strokes like conchita martinez. Do you watch tennis, have u seen the passing shots/returns players today are making? Insane angles and lots of power up the line.

armand
02-02-2006, 06:14 PM
Two of fed's weak rivals (hewitt, safin) made pete look like a club player in his own backyard. I wouldnt be so quick to discredit the players of today. If you think chang could beat nadal your crazy. Change served like 80 mph, and hit his ground strokes like conchita martinez. Do you watch tennis, have u seen the passing shots/returns players today are making? Insane angles and lots of power up the line.Did someone fire a machine gun at you? 'Cause your argument is full of holes. Game, set, match!

Chadwixx
02-02-2006, 06:22 PM
Point them out please.

armand
02-02-2006, 09:06 PM
I said "Game, set, match". No replaying the last point, no arguing the last call, no nothing!:mrgreen:
Seriously, all arguments can be found here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84878&page=2
And please note the unarguable one sided defeat in votes as well.

rfprse
02-02-2006, 09:18 PM
I wouldn't bet on it. Even if he did surpass Pete Sampras's record (and any other record there is), there will still be people who said that such an accomplishment is brought to you by the words "WEAK" and "FIELD". yadda yadda yadda.

You'll never win, I guess.

But hey! I don't have qualms in enjoying what tennis Fed has to offer. Weak field or not.

Yeah... I guess that's why I still think Laver is the GOAT (even though there are so many people citing the record of Sampras) Sampras fans can never win :)
Of course, if the subject is "the best ever", then it's Federer.

Chadwixx
02-02-2006, 09:20 PM
I said "Game, set, match". No replaying the last point, no arguing the last call, no nothing!:mrgreen:
Seriously, all arguments can be found here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84878&page=2
And please note the unarguable one sided defeat in votes as well.

Didnt hewitt take a set off rafter when he was 13? The modern guys would hammer the guys from the 90's. The game has evolved.

We all know sampras's serve (his main weapon much like roddick) wouldnt be as effective in todays game, many people serve as hard as he does and the modern racket technology neutralizes his heavy ball. As hewitt proved in his 6-1 6-1 thrashing of pete.

Chadwixx
02-02-2006, 09:26 PM
Yeah... I guess that's why I still think Laver is the GOAT (even though there are so many people citing the record of Sampras) Sampras fans can never win :)
Of course, if the subject is "the best ever", then it's Federer.

Greatest of all time in their specific era is different than the greatest player ever. Laver was the greatest in his time but todays federer would beat yesterdays rod laver. There is speculation to be made about how much stronger laver would be with todays technology, but you gotta compare them for what they were. In this case federer would beat all of them. Fed was a little boy when he beat pete, his game has gotten so much better since then. Id like to think its the ncode techology which i recently switched to :)

FREDDY
02-02-2006, 09:29 PM
Fed over Sampras hands down yo

Brigitte_B
02-02-2006, 09:44 PM
Are you rooting for Roger to break Pete's records? Or you want Sampras to remain as the Greatest Tennis player of All Time. Be Honest!:D

Though I respect Roger I think Pete will always be the Greatest!!!
he's much more confident and reserved, he's a winner by nature and he has never let his emotions drive him too far from he wanted to achieve.

rfprse
02-02-2006, 10:15 PM
Greatest of all time in their specific era is different than the greatest player ever. Laver was the greatest in his time but todays federer would beat yesterdays rod laver. There is speculation to be made about how much stronger laver would be with todays technology, but you gotta compare them for what they were. In this case federer would beat all of them. Fed was a little boy when he beat pete, his game has gotten so much better since then. Id like to think its the ncode techology which i recently switched to :)

Then, maybe we should think about Laver with ncode? :) I just want to make it clear that I wasn't talking about who plays better when I said Laver is GOAT. I agree that Federer's game is better than Laver & Sampras or any other. That's why I said Federer is the best ever.
However, in terms of achievement (which was my standard for goat), in my case, nothing so far can beat 2 Grand Slams.
Maybe, if Federer has a Grand slam and also beat the record of # of majors won, then Federer has a real strong case for GOAT.

Andy Hewitt
02-02-2006, 10:48 PM
It all depends who he is playing in the finals. (if i hate the guy or not).

hyperwarrior
02-02-2006, 11:01 PM
Pete Sampras' 14 Slams vs. Federer's 7 Slams.
Pete Sampras' 7 Wimbledons vs. Federer's 3 Wimbledons.
Pete Sampras' 7 Hardcourt Slams vs. Federer's 4 Hardcourt Slams.
Pete Sampras' 5 U.S. Opens on Hardcourts vs. Federer's 2 U.S. Opens on hardcourts.
Pete Sampras' 6 years ranked #1 vs. Federer's 2 years ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 286 weeks ranked #1 vs. Federer's 122 weeks ranked #1.
Pete Sampras' 5 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships vs. Federer's 2 Masters Cup ATP Tour Championships.
Pete Sampras' 8 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years winning Grand Slam singles titles.
Pete Sampras' 11 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals vs. Roger Federer's 4 consecutive years reaching Grand Slam singles finals.
Pete Sampras' 12 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles vs. Roger Federer's 3.5 years between first and last Grand Slam singles titles.

It's like you're comparing an apple with an orange...

eisu
02-03-2006, 12:17 AM
Someone should make a poll: 'Do you hope Federer's rivals get some game so that he will not have a ridiculously easy time in surpassing not only Sampras' 14 slams but going for Court's all time record of 24?'

This is the smartest post in this thread, and I don't know whether the poster even meant it to be.

I think it is unfortunate that Roger Federer came at a time when there are no other champions on the tour.

When Sampras set his records, he has to battle giants in every tournament. I mean other players of his caliber, who could pretend to the title of champion. This makes his achievements all the more admirable.

Even if Federer wins 20 Grand Slams beating "normal" players, the question of who's better will still remain unanswered.

Still, Sampras on his best day, or Federer on his best day, I pick sampras in straight sets. And that's just my personal opinion.

williams planet
02-03-2006, 01:35 PM
Lets not forget the most important fact, 1-0 fed in head to head match play.

Plenty of evidence that Pete Sampras is the greatest champion .. however, we will have to revisit this in about 10 years and see where Federer is at that point vs. Sampras.

Roger Federer has his work cut out for him if he hopes to ever measure up against the Great Sampras.

williams planet
02-03-2006, 01:37 PM
It's like you're comparing an apple with an orange...

These all-time records and/or Open Era records - especially with them being achieved in an era as competitive as the 1990s and 2000s - they clearly set Pete Sampras apart as the best tennis player in the sport's history.

christo
02-03-2006, 01:47 PM
Federer wins because like Pete ,mentally he is very strong, the worst shot I've ever seen him hit was the Sabatweeny against Safin (actually it was a pretty damn good shot, just not the right time to do it. Like pete he comes up with the goods when needed, think back to the tiebreak against Agassi where he crushed a couple of BH returns down the line to break AA's spirit. It's between the ears, knowing you've got the goods. It has nothing to do with nCode technology, doubtful Fed even has it in his frame anyway, maybe fairy dust or something else not for sale to mere mortals

bigserving
02-03-2006, 01:53 PM
I'm hoping not. Nothing against Roger, nothing for Pete. Roger is arguably the greatest of all time. If he does not break Pete's record, that would mean that another player or players even better than he came along. I am hoping to see many players better than Sampras and Federer come along.

Whoever holds the record, there will always be arguments about who is the best all time. I am hoping that twenty years from now it is between, Laver, Sampras, Federer, and four or five players to be named later.

Bertchel Banks
02-03-2006, 02:23 PM
he's[Pete] much more confident and reserved, he's a winner by nature and he has never let his emotions drive him too far from he wanted to achieve.

I don't know about winner by nature, because he was overshadowed by Andre his entire career. I don't want to talk too soon, or jinx him or anything but where Andre came up short, Federer looks to be picking up the slack one generation later.

From an astrological point of view I can see where you'd say Pete was confident and reserved. Pete's leo sun gives him an outsized, determined/stubborn ego. His Taurus moon, makes him extra stubborn, with a tight reign on his emotions. And his aquarius mars gives him a little more determination/stubborness, aloofness, with little concern for what others think of him. These three placements make for a conservative, inflexible, selfish individual.

Federer on the other hand, has the Leo confidence, a mutable, competitive, restless, seeking sagittarius moon, with a sensitive, emotional cancer mars.

Roger, I'm afraid is not as single minded as Pete, although way more talented, if he gets bored may wander...I pray he doesn't.

Andre Agassi (the common thread) has a determined Taurus sun, a determined "against the grain" aquarius moon*, with a mutable Gemini mars.

*This is why Pete was always obsessed with what Andre was doing (hehe)

Grimjack
02-03-2006, 02:36 PM
I don't know about winner by nature, because he was overshadowed by Andre his entire career. I don't want to talk too soon, or jinx him or anything but where Andre came up short, Federer looks to be picking up the slack one generation later.

From an astrological point of view I can see where you'd say Pete was confident and reserved. Pete's leo sun gives him an outsized, determined/stubborn ego. His Taurus moon, makes him extra stubborn, with a tight reign on his emotions. And his aquarius mars gives him a little more determination/stubborness, aloofness, with little concern for what others think of him. These three placements make for a conservative, inflexible, selfish individual.

Federer on the other hand, has the Leo confidence, a mutable, competitive, restless, seeking sagittarius moon, with a sensitive, emotional cancer mars.

Roger, I'm afraid is not as single minded as Pete, although way more talented, if he gets bored may wander...I pray he doesn't.

Andre Agassi (the common thread) has a determined Taurus sun, a determined "against the grain" aquarius moon*, with a mutable Gemini mars.

*This is why Pete was always obsessed with what Andre was doing (hehe)

This is the first post in the history of this forum I've ever been sincerely entertained by.

And thank you for being entertaining without feeling the need to resort to wacky fonts, colors, and enhancements to try to prop yourself up.

Bertchel Banks
02-03-2006, 02:41 PM
Thank you, Grimjack.

eisu
02-03-2006, 02:42 PM
.. but where Andre came up short..
Short? Winning all four Grand Slams is short?

From an astrological point of view I can see where you'd say Pete was confident and reserved. Pete's leo sun gives him an outsized, determined/stubborn ego. His Taurus moon, makes him extra stubborn, with a tight reign on his emotions. And his aquarius mars gives him a little more determination/stubborness, aloofness, with little concern for what others think of him. These three placements make for a conservative, inflexible, selfish individual.

Federer on the other hand, has the Leo confidence, a mutable, competitive, restless, seeking sagittarius moon, with a sensitive, emotional cancer mars.

Roger, I'm afraid is not as single minded as Pete, although way more talented, if he gets bored may wander...I pray he doesn't.

Andre Agassi (the common thread) has a determined Taurus sun, a determined "against the grain" aquarius moon*, with a mutable Gemini mars.

*This is why Pete was always obsessed with what Andre was doing (hehe)
Sorry. I didn't notice you were psycho. Please don't mind me.

federerforever
02-03-2006, 06:51 PM
Maybe Sampras had a tougher competition in the first half of his career from 1990-1995 but the three years 1996-1998 he practically had no competition. During that time Agassi was in a terrible slump, Becker was already burned out and ready to retire, and therefore the only one tough opponent was Rafter. I have seen very little of Rafter play and only noticed that he is an outstanding serve and vollyer. But he only won 11 singles titles. How can you call him a legend if he only won so few titles which means that his baseline game must have sucked. Roddick and Hewitt are both much better players than Rafter because both of them haw won more titles and their legend was only stopped by Federer. From now on Federer will have much tougher competition than Sampras especially since Nadal is a legend in the making and in my opinion is a much better player than Agassi, Becker, Rafter, Courier or any other Sampras rival that you can think of. Also Richard Gasquet could couse a lot of trouble to Federer in two years. Therefore if Federer beats Sampras record then it would have been done in the same competition. Go Roger Go.

hyperwarrior
02-03-2006, 11:17 PM
These all-time records and/or Open Era records - especially with them being achieved in an era as competitive as the 1990s and 2000s - they clearly set Pete Sampras apart as the best tennis player in the sport's history.

I know Pete's stats speaks for itself but I think it is more interesting to compare them in the end when Roger will retired.

You're comparing a full career VS a half career... I mean of course Pete has the edge in the open era...

armand
02-03-2006, 11:51 PM
This is the smartest post in this thread, and I don't know whether the poster even meant it to be.

I think it is unfortunate that Roger Federer came at a time when there are no other champions on the tour.

When Sampras set his records, he has to battle giants in every tournament. I mean other players of his caliber, who could pretend to the title of champion. This makes his achievements all the more admirable.

Even if Federer wins 20 Grand Slams beating "normal" players, the question of who's better will still remain unanswered.

Still, Sampras on his best day, or Federer on his best day, I pick sampras in straight sets. And that's just my personal opinion.Oh, don't worry, I meant it! Roger's a great player to watch even if he wins 6-2, 6-3, 6-0. But it would be nice to see him sweat a little more. And when there's a great struggle you discover who are the athletes and who are the warriors. When players are seperated from heroes.
Hope we can find out with more certainty if Fed's a warrior or a player.

Chadwixx
02-04-2006, 09:43 AM
Edited for time

Mr.Federer
02-04-2006, 09:55 AM
Oh yes!...that's what I voted for...