Better athlete: Federer or Sampras
- Thread starter dangalak
- Start date
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Beryl
Hall of Fame
I'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:
World Beater
Hall of Fame
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
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
Last edited:
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
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
G.O.A.T.
LOL. Nostalgia really is something. Apparently Sampras was completely immune to getting lobbed successfully. :lol:
dominikk1985
Legend
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.
+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
Banned
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
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Yup, and Sampras could apparently jump so high that it was "nearly impossible to lob" :lol:
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
well, he could be the best at it, and is as useful as Federer being the best at the "tweener".
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.
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
Banned
I'm just saying. I don't think it fetches him too many "athlete points" either way.
TheFifthSet
Legend
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
Legend
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.
Last edited:
mr_fro2000
Rookie
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.
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.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
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
Banned
i
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 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?
Basically, if you're a white guy, don't do sports.
The difference is, Sampras ended the point right there more often. Federer doesn't finish them "with extreme prejudice" like Sampras did.
mr_fro2000
Rookie
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?
Prisoner of Birth
Banned
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
Hall of Fame
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
Semi-Pro
lol lesser athlete lol
0d1n
Hall of Fame
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".
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
Bionic Poster
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
http://bcove.me/8n5d2tdr
ICanBeSerious
Rookie
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld4JRtDwPkI
RF20Lennon
Legend
I'm not sure yet if I agree but the post was hilarious!!!! :lol:
ICanBeSerious
Rookie
And what about the BH smashes that fed executes all the time so easily:
But no...Sampras jumping20cmoffthegroundwithnoapparentreason shows real athletism..
But no...Sampras jumping20cmoffthegroundwithnoapparentreason shows real athletism..
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
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.
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
Semi-Pro
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
G.O.A.T.
You obviously didn't watch Fed from 02-06.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
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.
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.
Last edited:
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
They obviously didn't watch 2004 Hamburg Federer vs Coria, wow.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
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
Professional
*waits for Sampras fans to bring up thalassemia minor problem which caused no problems.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Let's do it the other way round. What makes you think that Sampras would beat Federer in a decathlon?
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 ......
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
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
Bionic Poster
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".
Last edited:
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
I did. And I still believe Sampras was the better in terms of pure speed. But movement is more than just speed.
shakes1975
Semi-Pro
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.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
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.
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.
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
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
Rookie
Fed by a miles
Faster ,stronger , more explosive and better stamina
Pete just jumps a bit higher
Faster ,stronger , more explosive and better stamina
Pete just jumps a bit higher
Similar threads
- Poll
