Have we forgotten how good Sampras was?

[deucecourt]

Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

 

[alfa164164]

Sampras himself said Fed's forehand is better than his was, so you lose some credibility off the bat.

 

[Ztalin]

The only reason you're saying that Fed's competition isn't as good as Sampras's is because Fed's competition hasn't won many slams.

I think someone said it best on here that you guys think that the only way for Federer to prove his greatness, is to lose more? Because that's the only way that his competition can 'prove themselves.' Think about how illogical that is.

 

[deucecourt]

How does one lose credibility based on their opinion.

 

[ferocious4hand]

why doesn't wayne ferreira count?

 

[Tchocky]

Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count. The more we watch Fed destroy his competitors the more we forget how good Sampras was. But the Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

I'm willing to give the edge to Pete on the serve and volley but Roger does everything better. Fed's forehand may be one of the greatest shots in the history of the game. His one handed backhand is far superior to Pete's one handed backhand. And finally, Roger is a more versatile and all court player than Pete was.

 

[Nick Irons]

Most of these Fed fans have totally forgotten or were too young to remember (or just weren't paying attention during Pete's reign) how good the Pistol was.

It's almost insulting that the general attitude is dismissive when comparing the 2 players.

 

[jelle v]

Also Sampras never got owned by any player

What do you mean with this?

And no I haven't forgotten how great Sampras was (YouTube) but I simply think that Federer was the better player, not way better, but definitely better. I think the only thing Sampras was better at, was serving and the running forehand. Volleys are at least equal in my opinion.

 

[Chadwixx]

Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.

 

[jelle v]

Most of these Fed fans have totally forgotten or were too young to remember (or just weren't paying attention during Pete's reign) how good the Pistol was.

It's almost insulting that the general attitude is dismissive when comparing the 2 players.

I am 26, I was always watching tennis on tv and I was a big fan of Sampras (I was one of the people rooting for Sampras instead of Agassi), but even back then I thought his backhand wasn't really good. I loved his forehand and thought it could never be surpassed, but then Federer came and I changed my mind.

 

[fastdunn]

why doesn't wayne ferreira count?

The head to head records between Sampras and Ferreira was all
non-slam matches except one. Sampras was such a critical match
player. Their only meeting at slam was won by Sampras.

Other players like Stich has winning records over Sampras but
I think all of their slam meetings were won by Sampras.

Krajicek truely beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 1996 and he might have
overall winning head-to-head record but 1996
was only year Sampras skipped the warm-up event for Wimbledon.
And then he beat Krajicek at US Open.

 

[fastdunn]

I am 26, I was always watching tennis on tv and I was a big fan of Sampras (I was one of the people rooting for Sampras instead of Agassi), but even back then I thought his backhand wasn't really good. I loved his forehand and thought it could never be surpassed, but then Federer came and I changed my mind.

Then again we having the period of forehand revolution.

I think there are many many of urrent top pros who have their
(modern) forehand better than all time great players of 90's, IMHO.

 

[Swissv2]

I would take Pete's opinion over most anyone on these boards.

1. He has played Federer first hand.
2. He knows the game a BIT better than anyone of us.
3. He's been at the top - and has seen and played against quite a bit of the top players, therefore giving him more credibility than any of us.

If he states Federer's forehand is better, then he must have some grounds to say that.

 

[avmoghe]

Yes, Agassi, and almost every tennis authority in existence today have completely forgotten how good Sampras was.....

/sarcasm

 

[Nick Irons]

Who's arguing ?

 

[Hughy86]

I think you would be surprised just how good Fed really is at the net. He was originally are S&V player but only switched because he is so dominate from the baseline. It would be a terrible mistake to draw him into the net.

 

[VGP]

How can you forget if you've never seen?

I think this applies to many people today.

 

[alfa164164]

Your "opinion" lacks credibility because one of the basis for your conclusion doesn't seem accurate. Kind ol like if I said I think Rafael Nadal is a better player than Andy Roddick because Rafa's serve is better. Now you can still argue the position that Nadal is a better player, but your "opinion" on his serve makes you appear biased.
So, what do you know about Sampras' forehand that has it deemed superior to Fed's when Pete himself doesn't think so?
You could still have taken your stance and argued your position even with the acknowledgement that Federer's forehand is superior. If you had done so, a more reasonable discussion could have followed. As it stands, the perception is that you are not letting the facts (as put forth by Pete himself) get in the way of your position.

 

[holera]

Also Sampras never got owned by any player. Sorry Wayne Ferreira doesn't count.

i think krajicek owned sampras, even in his prime. in mid 90s, krajicek was 6-1 or 6-2 over sampras, including straights sets at wimbledon. and they liked the same surfaces. too bad krajicek struggled with injury so much.

i do think sampras has become underrated/forgotten. too many ppl think of his last years instead of 94-95 when he was almost as dominant as federer.

 

[tricky]

So, what do you know about Sampras' forehand that has it deemed superior to Fed's when Pete himself doesn't think so?

Yeah, but you gotta admit that running FH of Sampras is the bee's knees. Man if Fed added that to his arsenal . . .

I kinda think it isn't so much that people underestimate Sampras's legacy, but that people see serve+volley as a "impractical" , if not outright obsolete, form of play at the pro men's level today. And with that said, Sampras's all-court style over his career was pretty varied. Only constant was his aggression.

 

[dukemunson]

Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.

That is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on the TW message board (and lets be honest there are some ridiculous ones). You are basing Pete Sampras's nerves based on one shot in one match? Are you serious? Didnt Jordan miss a game winner or two in his career? Didn't Gretzky miss a relatively open slap shot from time to time? Didn't Pele ever mess up a header? While I believe Federer is playing at the highest level ever played right now it's only fractionally better then Sampras. Sampras may not have dominated quite the same way Fed is right now but he was pretty damn close (we're tossing out any extra arguments of talent level for this argument). Ultimetely I'll take Federer's game right now over anyone of all time but if it came down to who you wanted to serve out a set or match on a grandslam court (French excluded) give me Sampras anyday...

 

[alfa164164]

In Pete's 3 most dominant years, he still had like 44 loses.
I think Fed has like 15 losses for the last 3 years. That's ALOT more loses.
Federer also has more wins over that same timeframe.
Now, let's wait for the "Pete's competition was better" arguements.
Any moment.............(But that's 29 MORE losses over their most dominant extended period with fewer wins.)

 

[drakulie]

Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

When i used to watch Sampras, i was amazed by his game.I thought he was like the best player i have seen until i saw Fed.I am surprised that we saw this dominance come so early after Sampras left the game.I guess i know why Pete has some resement, people indeed might have forgotten about him.

 

[federerfanatic]

Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.

Sampras's forehand better then Federer's, ROTFL!!! Please. The only forehand Sampras hit a bit better is the running forehand, Federer has a way better forehand down the line, prone crosscourt forehand, inside out forehand, down the middle forehand, off forehand, wide forehand, short angled forehand. Federer's forehand is the best shot all time period.

Federer is better then Sampras, that is why he is a few years away from taking or sharing every record Sampras ever had. Get over it. Federer>Sampras.

The reason Federer wins so much more is he doesnt let his competition get that great, he just chooses to win everything instead. He doesnt let Yzaga or korda beat him at the U.S open like Sampras did, he doesnt let Safin or Hewitt embarass him in the finals like Sampras did. He doesnt let nothing-but-a-serve Krajicek or a 19-year old unmatured newbie like who? Oh yeah Fed himself, beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was only the #15 seed and 10% the player he was today and Pete was the #1 seed. If Pete couldnt even beat that Federer imagine what the Federer of today would do to him, ouch. He doesnt let unseeded players like Kucera or Phillipousis knock him out of the Aussie Open, nor does he skip an Aussie Open because he needs a break. He just instead chooses to win and win, instead of letting ungreat players knock him out of slams. Dont give me this crap about Agassi and Becker, it took ungreat players to knock Pete out of slams often.

 

[Polaris]

Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.

Exactly. Praise for Federer need not be seen as automatic denigration of Sampras.

 

[NamRanger]

Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.

You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.


Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.


It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

 

[Chadwixx]

Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.

 

[shakes1975]

this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

 

[Swissv2]

this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

Realize that people have a tendency to cling and glorify the past, as thongs cling and get stuck in one's booty.

 

[shrakkie]

Krajicek certainly had had Pete's number.

 

[federerfanatic]

You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.

Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.

It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

You are a moron to say I have never seen these players, I have seen them play many times and that is what they were. Ivanisevic sucked except for his serve, Cliff Drysdale and Fred Stolle said so a ton of times commentating on him, "if you get serve back he is out to sea" I guess they never saw him play either. You are obviously a Sampras fanboy who is trying to build Ivanisevic up just because he was a Sampras opponent. Sorry we are not fooled by your "you must have never seen the guy play" crap. Except for his great serve, he sucked, you arent fooling anybody, and most tennis know-whos who saw him play said the same thing at the time.

Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

 

[Lambsscroll]

Fed has no weakness. Fed has all Pete's strengths but not his weaknesses. Ask Agassi. BTW didn't Hewitt take apart Pete in a US Open final?

 

[Chadwixx]

Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

Nah rafter was first class. He was the serve and volley version of hewitt, busted his ass on every point.

 

[35ft6]

I don't think these arguments exist because we forgot -- they exist because we still remember. Think about it. If we really forgot, there would be no Roger versus Sampras threads.

In my opinion, the reason some people still hesitate to pass the GOAT crown to Roger is because it happened so soon, because the memories of Sampras being called a once in 50 or 100 years player, whose records might not be broken until everybody who's ever seen him play is dead, is still so fresh in our heads. You almost feel wishy washy when you say somebody is the greatest ever and then 4 years later you're saying it about somebody else. But here we are...

 

[alwaysatnet]

Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.

Yeah, it still amazes me. He sucks so much yet won all those grand slam titles. Isn't that amazing? Huh?

 

[Duzza]

How many threads do we need about this same argument. It's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Federer is clearly winning the race at the moment, and will probably gain the complete GOAT status if he keeps going as he well as he is. Face it, please. History was good, but get over it.

 

[yonex90]

I think an answer to your orginal question is that yes most people have forgotten how great he was, but I'm not saying that he's better than Federer or anything either. I think a lot of people forgot how great Borg was when Sampras was playing and etc. It's natural.
But I grew up watching Sampras and Agassi and I love those childhood memories but I always remember that Agassi had a chance to win against him going into the finals and for the last two years I haven't felt that anyone has a had a chance to beat him, so I think that this era of domination by Fed without a chance to beat him is somewhat unprecidented.
Yet Borg could win the French and Wembledon back to back two years in a row and no one has dominated on those two surfaces since then either. So in a way there's an arguement that the depth of Borg's game could trump Fed or Sampras at this point.
I don't get into these things because I think just like great music, these players have to be split into era's. Each one being very different than the one before it.

 

[OnceWas]

haven't forgotten how good Sampras was on hardcourts. Also haven't forgotten how vulnerable he was on clay, either. Would still take Federer as a better all around player. No disrepect to Sampras .

 

[caulcano]

Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.

I agree FED is not way better.

Each player have strengths and weaknesses. However, I like to think of FED as a more consistent player than SAMP ever was (the records show this clearly).

 

[Fedexeon]

Ivanisevic was better than Roddick?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more. With these types of game it would be harder to constantly win. When Andy Murray beat fed he said that Fed probably had 20 bad games a year which he still manages to win. Thats 20 bad games with the current equipment which makes things a lot easier. If he travels back into Petes times, those 20 bad games may become a lot more. As you can see, you can't compare eras, as in the short space of even 6 years, a lot has changed.

In Pete's 3 most dominant years, he still had like 44 loses.
I think Fed has like 15 losses for the last 3 years. That's ALOT more loses.
Federer also has more wins over that same timeframe.
Now, let's wait for the "Pete's competition was better" arguements.
Any moment.............(But that's 29 MORE losses over their most dominant extended period with fewer wins.)

 

[fastdunn]

In my case, I am not so sure Fed is clearly best I've ever seen.

ATP tour playing condition has been altered severely sometime between
2001 - 2003. Federer heppened to have a right type of game at the right time.
(Sampras also had perfect game for 90's condition).

Federer seems to have better hand and those non atheletic domain factors
like game intellegence, court vision and so on. But I think Sampras
is still best player I've ever seen in physical/atheletic domain which I still
think it is the primary aspect of this sport.

I think next 3 years will be much tougher for Federer than his last 3 years.
There will be these new young up and commers. And there always will be
a few more problem lefties.

Federer is most talented player I've ever seen in terms of both atheletic
and non-atheletic domain. But my prediction is that his reign as #1 will
end within 2 years from now....and rather abruptly unlike Sampras' last
3 years of his 6 prime years.

 

[drakulie]

I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more.

Pretty lame argument. Fed used the same racquet as Sampras, and the racquet he has been using the last few years is a 90 square inch racquet. When you place these two racquets on top of one another the deifference in size is hardly noticeable.

Additionally, the players Fed faces today (under your premise), are using even better racquets than those used by the competition of Sampras, and he is still beating them handily with the same racquet.

 

[TGV]

Federer is most talented player I've ever seen in terms of both atheletic
and non-atheletic domain. But my prediction is that his reign as #1 will
end within 2 years from now....and rather abruptly unlike Sampras' last
3 years of his 6 prime years.

It sounds like you are talking with your heart here, not head. I imagine you think 97-99 were the last 3 years of Sampras's prime. Sampras won 4 slams in these 3 years. Fed has already won the first slam of 07. So, in order for Fed to have fewer slams (i.e. less than 4) during 07-09, he would have to lose 9 out of the next 11 slams.

Among the new guys, only Murray seems to have the game to compete with Fed. I don't think Gasquet, Berdych and Baghdatis will pose any problems (0 for 12 in their last 12 matches). So unless Murray himself becomes a Sampras/Federer type of dominant champion, it's hard to imagine Federer having less success than Sampras in his last years of prime.

 

[kimizz]

Federer=Great Sampras=Great Borg=Great.Who is the Greatest? Id say the only way to get an answer to this is to invent a time machine and get all the great players from the past and present to one tournament and give them equal equipment...sounds like a great idea for a movie

 

[BeckerFan]

I've been waiting for them to make a computer game that simulates the playing styles of the greatest players in history. I'm imagining Elly Vines, in long pants, or Pancho Gonzales staring down Sampras across the net ... who would outserve whom? Perhaps some extra games on the side as well, like a footrace between Fred Perry and Borg. Then we'd finally know who has the most goatiness. ;-)

 

[dukemunson]

I think it w as much tougher to play consistent tennis with the equipment back then. Thats probably why Fed also used to lose a lot back then. With the equipment now, hes able to play a much lower risk game and still dominate. If Fed was playing now under the same conditionds as back in Pete's time, hed likely still be the best as he has a better rounded game than everyone else, but hed have a lot more losses also. He'd have to play a higher risk game from the baseline as he wouldnt be able to hit with as much margin as he can with present equipment, or he'd have to come to net more. With these types of game it would be harder to constantly win. When Andy Murray beat fed he said that Fed probably had 20 bad games a year which he still manages to win. Thats 20 bad games with the current equipment which makes things a lot easier. If he travels back into Petes times, those 20 bad games may become a lot more. As you can see, you can't compare eras, as in the short space of even 6 years, a lot has changed.

A pretty weak argument...your telling me racket technology between the time Sampras played and Federer is playing has changed that much? Changes in style of play has less to do with technology and more to do with psychology...In todays game Sampras would still be dominating (other then Fed which would have been an all-time classic match-up) "Old techology" or not...

 

[deucecourt]

Giving yourself the name "Federerfanatic" bars you from any logical arguments to this particular thread. I hope for your sake you are a female.

 

[deucecourt]

HEY alfa164164 You absolutely make no sense whatsoever. Just because Sampras says Feds forehand is better does not make it fact, sure he would have a better read on it playing first hand but it is still an opinion one of which I would differ. Pete is being HUMBLE..