Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by fed_rulz, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Pete will not say that. He only cares about the majors and Nadal is 6-3 vs Nole.
     
  2. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    LOL, you guys are comparing a player from the previous era to the current active players. There is simply no way to compare. Anyway, have fun discussing something that are totally based on opinions and Happy New Year! :)
     
  3. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,547
    Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.

    No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".

    Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.
     
  4. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    Which Laver? The little guy who beat up on amateurs to win most of his Slams? That Laver?
     
  5. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,547
    No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.
     
  6. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,547
    ^ the statement revealing how much you do not know about tennis.

    Saved for future use.
     
  7. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.
     
  8. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.
     
  9. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,547
    Irrelevant--as it is easy to collect any of the four over the span of years. He was incapable of concentrated dominance over the field at majors during a season (calendar year), like Laver.



    To modify your words, without the Grand Slam, Federer is a definite drop below Laver.
     
  10. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York


    If it was invented, then it exists. Davis Cup didn't exist before that Davis guy invented it but now it does. Same goes for golden career slam. Couldn't care less for whom it was invented. It was and now it exists and Nadal has it, Agassi has it, Sampras doesn't.
     
  11. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,547
    Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.
     
  12. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    It was invented by the Agassi-loving media (no complaints there, I like Andre). But I rarely see the term being used now, leaving aside Nadal's most ardent followers of course. So yeah, even the media thinks its passe
     
  13. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    It's okay, even Nadal got his fair share of luck at USO particularly considering the fact that previously, his best result there was one SF in all these years.
     
  14. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,052
    Location:
    Weak era
    Incorrect, that would mean that they awarded the FO trophy to Fed the minute Nadal lost which obviously didn't happen.

    Regarding calling his FO win "fluke", incorrect again, we're talking about a player with 5 FO finals to his name here.

    Eh, sure he did, he won 7 BO5 matches and thus won the title in the end.
     
  15. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York

    I haven't studied the frequency of its use (lol) but I have seen it. In any case the big deal is not the "golden" part, the big deal is the career slam which Sampras doesn't have, not even a final at RG.
     
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    But it's certainly not easy to win 17 slams, holds 302 weeks at #1, 23 straight semifinals, or reaching 24 slam finals. Those are just a few records that lifted him above everyone else, including Laver.

    And Laver have conceded Federer is the greatest, that speaks volume.
     
  17. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,417
    Location:
    USA
    Those records just scratch the surface of his what he's achieved.
     
  18. pringles

    pringles Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    What was the problem for poor Rafa to reach the final that year?
     
  19. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Nadal played the French Open in 2009. You sound confused.
     
  20. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    For someone who has a problem with me starting a thread based on what Sampras "supposedly" said, you sure make a **** load of assumptions based on my motives and agenda... all based on my username.

    Still not sure why you feel the need to assert that Laver is the "true" GOAT based on the 2 CYGS he won. I ask you again... why do you feel the need to bash Federer and remind everyone that Laver is the GOAT since he won the CYGS, when (a) the thread is not a discussion on who the GOAT is and has nothing to do with Laver, and (b) you should be directing your anger at Pete, because if the quotes attributed to him are true, then he sure does not think highly of Laver, thus violating his sanctity, and desecrating your place of worship in the process.
     
  21. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    *******s love to quote others about how good Federer is, but as soon as Sampras says something about Federer losing to his greatest rival, all up in arms. Way to stir the pot, this thread is 17 pages already and growing strong.

    Refer to my “Why the GOAT does not exist” thread, it sums up the GOAT, or lack thereof perfectly. Unless Federer can address the deficit, history will always judge him as the man who was Nadal’s little *****. Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.

    Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:

    • Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
    • Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
    • During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
    • Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
    • Record 6 years ending number 1.

    You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.

    So if you think the above equates to a tennis hack which renders Sampras in no man's land, then you’re an idiot.

    To you, losing to Nadal may not mean much, but I’m very sure it means a hell of a lot to Federer. It must eat at him to know that there is a guy out there who hands him his ass on a platter at the slams (let me reiterate, this will be acknowledged in all future tennis statistical and other books). This is something Federer has to live with. Talk all you like about beating the field, but at the end of the day, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME must also be able to beat any player in history at least 2 times out of 3 on 3 different surfaces. GREATEST remember, BETTER than anyone else. In that regard, the Federer v Nadal scoreline is a miserable one for Federer, not just miserable, but an epic fail, whether you choose to include the RG matches or not. Live with it, it’s the truth.
     
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Federer's Records and Streaks

    Can you list Laver's records?
     
  23. Prisoner of Birth

    Prisoner of Birth Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,786
    I'll try

    A Grand Slam against Amateurs.
    Another in a weak era against weak pros.

    That's it.
     
  24. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    How can Federer be the greatest of all time if Nadal in this era alone is already beating him 8-2 in slams on 3 different surfaces, and Nadal is not even the greatest of all time? Imagine what would guys like Sampras,Laver, Borg, Pancho, etc. would do to Federer. In fact, Federer is not even the best of his own era, Nadal is.
     
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    It was also 3 on grass and 1 on clay. But according to smoledman, Fed's zillions records only scratch the surface of Laver's achievement.:confused:
     
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    And don't forget Nadal has to win 34 slams to surpass Sampras.
     
  27. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    For Nadal to dominate his era to an extent as Sampras did, Nadal has to compile twice more slam count than his nearest rival, Federer. I don't think he will ever achieve it, but he can try.
     
  28. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York

    No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
  29. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    Petetards have comprehension problems, and this post sums it up perfectly. No one claimed Pete was a tennis hack; just that he has no argument over Federer. if you believe anyone in this thread claims or believes that Pete was a tennis hack (he was pretty poor on clay), then you're the idiot.

    you see, you'll have to come up with made-up stats like "never lost a wimbledon final" or "owned his rivals in his prime" to keep him in the discussion. If pete owned his rivals in his prime, how is that he ended up with lesser slams than Federer in his prime (both their primes spanned the same length...)? and losing in the QF is more impressive than losing in the final? what sort of puke-worthy record is that?
     
  30. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    i think you may have misunderstood smoldeman (or i might have :) ) -- i understood that he meant that the records that you quoted for Federer are just a few of the many of the other records he owns..
     
  31. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    *applause*
    can't believe vernoquiem has come to the defense of Federer; in any case, huge props :)
     
  32. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Rosewall won 23 majors(amateur slams+open era slams+pro majors) to Laver 19. According to your logic, Laver has to win 46 majors to surpass Sampras.
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    If I did I appologize.:)

    But everyone should know by now that smoledman is LOLvile. He's pretending to support Roger just to avoid his identity.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  34. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York


    I have subjective preferences but I'm super honest about records. No way around facts, no cheating allowed. Otherwise, where would be the glory at achieving anything?
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    Comparing Fed to other players, you support him, but comparing him to Nadal, you knock him down. You don't have to explain, we already know why.:-|
     
  36. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Will you marry me?
     
  37. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York
    I don't support Fed in anything. I just can't let someone say that 14 slams > 17, 11 masters > 21 and 5 WTF > 6 WTF, etc, etc. If I let that happen, nothing makes sense anymore and the world becomes chaos...
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
  38. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30,972
    Location:
    New York

    I'm already married but thanks anyway :)
     
  39. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    It would still leave him in front of Sampras.
    You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.
    If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.
     
  40. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.
     
  41. mistik

    mistik Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,892
    İf Fed is goat so Margeret Court in women tennis.Anybody believes Court better than Graf and Navratilova seriosly ???
    Fed won 17 majors during the weakest era in mens tennis.
    Court won 11 AO titles when AO field was weak,thats why she won record 24 GS titles.Both of them arent the best ever.
     
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,052
    Location:
    Weak era
    Beautiful post Vero, absolutely beautiful.
     
  43. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    Sampras is widely considered one of the best ever players - you don't think his 14 slams is a key factor in that?
     
  44. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    In Sampras' day, and in the days before Sampras, the first week was always a big risk. Just look at the recent history of Wimbledon.

    Lewis making the final in 83
    Curren making the final in 85
    Doohan knocking off the 2 time champ Becker in Round 2

    The way the grass is now, and the way the game is played now, you won't find these journeymen who are damn good grass courters causing upsets.

    At Wimbledon, Sampras was always suspect in the first week and a bit. However, once he got 5 or 6 matches under his belt and was in the zone, he was unbeatable. Plain and simply, unbeatable. Same can't be said for Fed.
     
  45. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,052
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not really, no.

    Fed beat full fields to win all his slams, in some of Court's AO wins, AO had a 32 player maindraw.

    Until say 1988 it's hard to argue AO was on par with other slams, the vast majority of the time it was on par with masters tourney at best.

    No, but many people (including Laver :) ) believe Fed's one of the best ever.

    This is a subjective opinion, AO's relevance/draw size compared to other slams in Court's time isn't.

    Again, there's no correlation between Court and Fed, educate yourself a bit about tennis history first.
     
  46. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Honestly, who has Fed lost to outside Nadal (and that was extremely close) in the finals? I think you're splitting hairs. There really isn't much difference in terms of achievements between Sampras and Federer. You want to argue Sampras played at a higher level? Go ahead. Granted, Sampras was much more explosive on grass. But he also played in a different set of conditions. The one time that Federer and Sampras met, Federer won playing Pete's game (almost). And if Sampras was old, Federer was still not at his best, playing his first ever match on Wimbledon CC. Nobody expected him to win that encounter. Now, this doesn't tell us that Federer is significantly better than Sampras but it does tell us that the man is capable of adapting his play and could very well have done the same in any "era."
     
  47. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    rosol in wimbledon 2012 and safin in wimbledon 2008 and berdych in wimbledon 2010 say HELLO :)

    the main problem with sampras' record @ wimbledon is that at peak of his powers is he got straight-setted by krajicek , didn't even put up much of a fight .....

    at the peak of his powers, federer lost only one grass court match (2003-09) - that was the 2008 wimbledon final, where he fought after being down two sets to love and it was a close match ending 9-7 in the 5th .....

    sampras didn't seem all that unbeatable in the final vs courier in 93, neither in the 95 SF vs goran, obviously not the 96 QF vs krajicek, nor the 98 final vs goran, nor the 99 QF vs phillippoussis ...... all these in the 2nd week ....
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2012
  48. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,052
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not really, no.

    Borg for example has fewer slam wins than Sampras but notice Laver still put him ahead on his official tennis great ranking list, not to mention that being ranked #3 in the Open Era hardly means you're nothing (it's a great achievement).

    Of course, classy humble gentleman that he is, Laver refused to rank himself instead of proclaiming himself as the greatest ever (which shows a combination of arrogance and insecurity) but we all know no one is above him as a player (nor as a tennis analyst).
     
  49. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    LOL at putting Borg above Sampras. Borg has 0 US Open title and 0 AO. His dominance at #1 was also not much longer than Nadal. He has no business being compared to Sampras.
     
  50. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,755
    Federer has a host of other records in case you forgot, PLUS a subjective quality of play that is extremely highly regarded by many.
     

Share This Page