Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Razoredge, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    I have viewed footage of tilden, but i dont find him particularly athletic or nimble, flexible compared to the athletes of today.

    He seems a bit gangly and not as fast as say for example borg or laver on the court, or as agile/fluid as federer.

    But that is besides the point.

    Comparig either fed/samp to tilden is very difficult because the structure of global tennis landscape has changed significantly over many generations between these players. Also the technology, and the surfaces are different.

    Comparin federer to sampras, however is not as difficult because you are really only talking about at most one generation in between the two players, if you can call it that.

    Much of the criteria used to compare federer to sampras is quite valid given the fact that the structure of the ATP and ITF hasnt changed too much.

    Therefore using numbers to compare leaves less room for interpretation because the variables havent changed as much between federer to sampras...as say federer/sampras to tilden.
     
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,466
    Good point however it's always hard to say with some of that old footage. I see some old footage of Laver sometimes and in the old black and white he frankly doesn't look that good. He looks as though he had no power at all. But you check out the youtube footage and Laver is the Laver I saw live and in person.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

    Babe Ruth is still considered by many to be the best baseball player ever. He played in the 1920's but his stats were so overwhelming it staggers the imagination to sort of quote Charlie Brown.

    I see footage of Pancho Gonzalez for example and I see a gifted athlete and a great player and yet Tilden in the 1950's won a few games from Gonzalez.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  3. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,259
    Different eras, impossible to say one thing or the other.

    Is Sampras "better" than McEnroe?

    This question has no answer, because they are not from the same era.

    Is Federer "better" than McEnroe?

    Exactly the same. That question has no answer.

    You can not know if the greatest (or one of the greatest) player from one era is "better" than the greatest player (or one of them) of another different era.

    And for me, even 7 or 8 years of age apart means DIFFERENT ERAS.


    Yesterday I was watching McEnroe vs Vilas on green clay, wood racquets. It was so beautiful.

    How can ANYBODY know what Sampras, or Agassi, or Federer, or Nadal....would have achieved in that era?

    It is impossible to know.

    All this GOAT thing is only for retarded people that probably even don't like tennis at all to begin with.
     
  4. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,063
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I don't see how Sampras can be considered GOAT at this point when Federer is above him in basically every important aspect. At this point Borg and Nadal are probably more likely to be GOAT than him, Federer is just like Sampras 2.0 whereas they have some unique aspects where they are superior to Federer (even if overall I believe they are inferior players).
     
  5. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    it's sports, the defining elements of sports is competition, trying to be the best, GOAT is an absolutely obvious part of sports talk, nay I say mandatory
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The questioning mark on past greats is something that is not only common to tennis.Other sports fans have embraced that.

    Lauda,Fittipaldi,Prost and Senna were as good as Vettel,Schumacher or Alonso, and maybe better, yet nobody remembers them

    Merckxy, Anquetil,Hinault would be just as great if not better than Armstrong or Corredor, yet press seems to have forgotten them

    What about Marciano,Alí,Leonard,Robinson,Dempsey?.if they were still around, boxing would be as great as it was many decades ago.

    Russell,Jabbar,Chamberlain had much more class than any center in today´s NBA league,a nd probably than any forward, as well, but seems like that position, because there is no dominant center anymore is not important...and Lebron,Durrant and Bryant get over credit.

    Phelps and Bolt are exceptional athletes, but it was just as hard for Lewis,Owens,Spitz and Gross to achieve what they achieved with much less than a fifth of the technological and scientific advancements.

    Messi is an all time great and plays at a faster pace than any other all timer but...Di
    Stefano,Mazzola,Pelé,Cruyff,Maradona,Beckenbauer or Platini were just as bit of good as him , Ronaldo or Zidane.

    and we could continue forever...
     
  7. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    No, he wasn't. stop making **** up.
     
  8. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,656
    Clear Question - easy answer

    Your question: Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

    Answer: Yes

    Why?: Pluses - second highest number of Slams won in Open Era - 14
    - second highest number of year end championships - 5
    - Highest (Equal) number of Wimbledons won - 7
    - Highest (Equal) number of US Opens won in Open era - 5
    - 6 year end number 1 ranking positions
    - second longest time in ATP history as number (in weeks)

    Minuses - No French Open win
    - Relatively low number of Masters 1000's won (11 - there are at least 11 guys in the Open era who have won more)

    The Minuses are really not big minuses (given those most GOAT candidates have some hole in their CV) - so Yes he is in the GOAT list.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  9. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,778
    No Olympics medals
     
  10. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,271
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    He was YE#1 six years in a row, 1993-1998 IIRC.
     
  11. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,466
    Check the facts. You can see what I wrote is fact. And incidentally I meant six end of year rankings in a row.
    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx

    http://www.petesampras.com/sampras2.html

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...oger-federer-will-never-equal-or-break/page/2
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  12. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Six year ends in a row is VASTLY different than 6 years in a row. 6 years in a row would put him at minimum 312 weeks at No.1 and we both know that is not true. Next time, watch what you say because I call people out on their BS.
     
  13. President

    President Legend

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,063
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    [​IMG]

    I actually agree with you though. Sampras' 6 YE #1 are vastly overrated. At times he would just play a lot of tournaments towards the end of the year in order to ensure his ranking, Federer's 237 (or whatever it is) consecutive weeks at number one are a lot more impressive.
     
  14. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Hah.. That image cracks me up.

    I am not bothered about what is more impressive.

    I just want people to speak accurately. Sampras never was ranked no.1 six years in a row. he ended 6 years as no.1.

    And no, it is not semantics. djokovic was not ranked no.1 in 2012. he ended the year as ranked no.1 and he and federer split the ranking throughout the year. So federer was ranked X weeks as no.1 in 2012, djokovic as Y weeks with djokovic ending the year as NO.1. this is especially important in tennis because each week is counted towards the players total weeks ranked no.1

    Now that I have schooled you kids, just keep it in mind next time you profess your Ramptard nostalgic nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  15. killerboi2

    killerboi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    337
    Denying Sampras a goat contender position is laughable to be honest.
     
  16. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,292
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Ok that is preposterous Sampras in one of the GOAT's
     
  17. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686


    Dumb post if there ever was one. RG means so little that your hero bawled when he finally won it, and fell down and rolled around in the dirt he was so happy. Sure seems meaningless to Fed doesn't it?
     
  18. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,656
    Minor event

    That was a minor event in Pete's time. (Even now it is only 750 points for the winner).
     
  19. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Sampras is definitely one of the greats of the game.

    However, his achievements in totality are not as unique as borg, laver, federer, or even nadal when comparing them to other players in the so-called short-list for GOAT - that is the argument for Numero Uno of ALL TIME.
    --> Not just an all-time great...

    Sampras has amassed many "longevity" based numbers largely on faster courts - major count, weeks at #1 etc. But he has been bettered by federer in many of these areas.

    The answer to the GOAT question lies in the defined Criteria. Depending on the criteria used, you could end up with

    Laver, as goat - based on his cygs
    borg, his channel slams
    nadal, his claim as the best on clay holding many records by himself
    federer, holding many longevity / dominance based records - #1, # of slams etc.
    Sampras-? You would have to twist the criteria in such a calculated way to eliminate federer from the conversation, as almost every criteria that would be beneficial to sampras would allow Federer to stand out more than Sampras.

    Of course, I am not even talking about pre-open era greats, who also possess unique and outstanding achievements.
     
  20. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,563
    Thats why its so difficult to compare across eras. Laver got the 2 Calendars at a time with 3 slams played on grass and one on clay (Heck if Sampras got that, it may have been possible he would have grabbed at least one calendar himself). Nadal's accomplishments have came in the SLOW COURT era. If things were more polarized, his numbers aren't nearly as good.

    I dont put Borg as a GOAT candidate because he retired so early and never won a hard court slam. ( which consisted of half the year at the time). Sampras still managed 3 of the 4. Borg only 2 of the 4. He had a high winning percentage but thats easier to do when you retire at 25/26. Before you're physical decline

    Sampras also managed to win slams 12 years apart.. Which is pretty crazy.

    Then factor in:

    2nd most slams of the open era
    Won 3 of the 4 slams more then once
    Most year end #1s
    5 year end championships
    Arguably the GOAT on one surface (Borg was surpassed by Nadal in the French Open count)
    Overrall dominated his main rivals (McEnroe got the best of Borg quite a bit.. Something Sampras didn't let Andre do)

    Thats GOAT material. Not hands down GOAT material of course.. Still GOAT material
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  21. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    Stuff kind of equals out in the end.

    Pete's style was definitely suited to the faster surfaces of the 90's much like nadal benefits from today's slowed down conditions.
     
  22. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,025
    Agreed. 10 chars.
     
  23. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    even with 3 majors on grass sampras still would never have a grand slam..

    as he was always utterly and completely demolished and destroyed on the french open clay.
     
  24. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,563
    He got to the SF and a few QF in his prime under Gullickson (usually losing to the eventual winner) and won Rome and Davis Cup on SLOW clay. .. I wouldn't say thats "demolished". You are talking as if he was Roddick bad on clay or something. ROFL
     
  25. recreationalplayer

    recreationalplayer Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    126
    Yes, Sampras is in the group, and very high on the list.

    But unfortunately, even in the light of history, he is underappreciated, probably because he let his tennis do the talking. He was stoic, and his stoicism cost him on the popularity scale but I bet he wouldn’t trade one major title for winning a popularity contest.

    Having said that, in my opinion Roger Federer is the GOAT.
     
  26. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,563
    Very "under appreciated" and underrated.. In that USO all time great thread. Connors and Fed had twice of THREE times as many votes as he did. ROFLMAO.. What a joke

    Despite winning 5 USO titles, and reaching the most finals (yea more then Federer and the same number of USO titles as Federer). ROFL. And he won that slam 12 years apart (one at 19 years of age and the other at 31 years of age) Actually its more "haterade" then it is anything for Sampras


    Seriously.. How in the hell does Connors and Fed get 30-50 votes and Sampras get NINE? This isn't Connors/Fed vs. Rafter or something.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  27. qindarka

    qindarka Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    267
    The Australian Open was on Grass then so only one major was on hard court. Not to mention that the Australian Open was hardly prestigious then, can hardly fault Borg for not playing in and winning it. He did win other big hard court titles.
     
  28. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    you just confirm that sampras is not a goat..

    wittering on about the reaching the QF :) BIG DEAL.
     
  29. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,553
    [​IMG]
     
  30. DoctorBackhand

    DoctorBackhand Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    New York
    ^^^Yuck.:shock:

    Please remove that before all of us + the mods throw up in our mouths.
    Thats just nasty.
     
  31. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Why are you talking like Laver had it easier because 3 out of 4 majors were on grass in 1969? The grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills all had considerably different conditions. As for Borg, he only played in 4 hardcourt majors (1978-1981 US Opens) and reached the final in 3 of them. The Australian Open was on grass in those days and it didn't become a hardcourt tournament until 1988, so your contention that half of the majors were on hardcourts in Borg's era is false, and it was actually zero percent before the US Open became a hardcourt tournament in 1978.
     
  32. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Connors' record is better, with amazing longevity. Federer has greater domiance with 5 titles in a row, 6 finals in a row, and then twice losing in semi finals from match points up in the 2 years after that. Sampras was losing fourth round matches in some of his prime years to Yzaga and Korda, years when Sampras was the strong tournament favourite (particularly in 1997). Connors had a bad loss to Witsken in 1986, but that was after 12 straight years of reaching at least the semi finals of the US Open (winning it 5 times).
     
  33. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,563


    Same reason Sampras would have it easier 3 of the slams were played on HIS Best surface (grass?). Wouldn't you consider it more difficult win the calendar On rebound Ace, fast hard court, slow clay, and fast grass, then it would would be to play on 3 grass courts (of various speeds) and clay for a calendar year? Especially if you consider there were NEVER more polarized conditions then that of the 90s in any era in history. Sampras was injured vs. Yzaga in 94 as well. So he had some bad losses. (Fed's had some bad losses too.. Berdych who has done WHAT exactly? Blowing those match points vs Nole the past few years) But . 5 USO titles, and most Finals appearances is not enough to warrant him more then 9-10 votes as opposed to Connors 30 votes and Fed's 40-50 votes? ROFLMAO... Thats major biased haterade there. Thats like comparing Federer to a 1-2 time USO winner, not to a 5 time champ with multiple finals and the USO won 12 years apart.


    Not to mention Sampras had to deal as a rival (Agassi which is superior to ANY USO hardcourt players of the 00's that Fed played.. Other then an Old broke back sciatica ridden Agassi). Then you got Safin, Rafter (WHo Fed was 0-3 against) and others

    Prime Agassi at the USO>>> Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi (Which a close to peak Federer struggled to beat mind you) etc.. And you can mention Nadal but Fed never played him there because Nadal was never good enough to even reach a SF during Fed's heyday
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  34. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,597
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    You are forgetting that 90's clay dos'nt know what he is wittering on about..

    but it's amusing to have the court jester around to amuse us with his fact free nonsense, :twisted:
     
  35. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    Everyone voting in that poll is casting an individual vote, it's not like everyone ganged together and decided to collectively vote 50 votes for Connors and Federer and 9 votes for Sampras. Everyone could be giving them a very slight edge over Pete. So if you accept that someone could think Federer had the edge or Connors could (which you should because you probably beleive Sampras's greater strike rate at Wimbledon outranks Federer's greater number of finals, so someone can say the same for Federer at the USO, and Connors had greater consistency and won on 3 surfaces) then you have very little grounds for dubbing people's haters. INDIVIDUAL VOTES, yeah?

    Lol, Hewitt also beat Pete at the US Open *EDIT cos i screwed up and thought Hewitt beat Pete twice* (as well as 2-1 on grass so quite a headache for Pete) but you single out Safin because Federer played Hewitt at the USO but not Safin. It's too obvious. Plus Federer did have a 10-2 H2H with Safin so would have beat him at the USO as well.

    And Rafter? You mean a guy that retired from tennis when Federer was 21 and had not even won a master event yet? And he had enough trouble with greenhorn Federer at Halle 2001 (their final meeting) when he only won 4-6 7-6 7-6
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  36. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Hewitt only beat Pete once in 2001 US Open. Hewitt lost in straight sets in 2000 US Open, where Pete just demolished Hewitt easily. They played on grass only once at Queens where Pete never took the tournament seriously anyway.
     
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    clueless, totally clueless ...

    The 2000 SF b/w hewitt and sampras was a close 3-setter with all 3 sets being tight.

    The 2001 F was demolition in every sense of the word

    A double breadstick, double breadstick ! 7-6,6-1,6-1


    they played on grass thrice - queens 99, 2000, 2001 ... in 99, sampras struggled to beat well before his prime hewitt ( only 6-4 in the third ) and hewitt won their next 2 meetings @ queens ....
     
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    djoker will match or surpass agassi @ the US Open ... His level of play on several occasions vs federer has been superior to that of agassi vs sampras at the very same place .......

    lol @ mention rafter's H2H vs a very young headcase federer ...

    federer "struggled" to beat agassi @ the USO , but sampras actually lost to yzaga, korda and was a point away from losing to corretja ...all these at his peak ....

    I'd anyways take the 2004/2005 agassi over the 90s USO final agassi who looked clueless that day on court ....

    2004 agassi over a tired agassi in the 2002 finals ( had a tiring match vs hewitt in the semis )
     
  39. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    You obviously did not read the post I was replying to. Clueless is indeed a perfect word for you in this case. :)
     
  40. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,571
    you are of course right about the US Open, my bad.But they did play 3 times at queens, semi in 1999 (pete won) and final in 2000 and semi in 2001, both won by hewitt

    Also Sampras won the 2000 semi 7-6 6-4 7-6 (same score but different order of sets as Federer beating Djokovic in the 2007 final) which is not demolishing anyone. Hewitt winning 7-6 6-1 6-1 is only two games more competitve than the demolishing Fed gave hewitt in 2004, though.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  41. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    Sorry, your facts are very inaccurate. You really need to check your source before posting to avoid embarrassment. :oops:
     
  42. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    No. Hewitt and Sampras played 3 times at Queen's Club:

    1999 Queen's Club SF: Pete Sampras def. Lleyton Hewitt (4-6, 6-4, 7-6)
    2000 Queen's Club F: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-4)
    2001 Queen's Club SF: Lleyton Hewitt def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-3, 6-2)
     
  43. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    You're right about the Queen's Club meetings! Sorry, I was referring to his statement about Hewitt beating Pete 2 out of 2 in slams anyway. :)
     
  44. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Sampras ranks just behind Borg. Borg mastered both slow and fast surfaces. Sampras sucked on slow courts comparatively.

    hence

    BORG > Sampras
     
  45. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Yet Federer is one of the few current sportsmen who is considered GOAT in his field.

    Senna (or Fangio) are still considered F1 GOAT.

    Merckx is definitely still cycling GOAT (he was even before Lance got exposed as a drugs cheat).

    Ali, Marciano, Leonard etc. are still boxing GOATS - in fact everyone mentions how poor today's boxing is compared to previous generations.

    Jordan is considered basketball GOAT.

    Pele and Maradona are considered football GOATS; Messi has not proven himself at international level yet.

    Nicklaus is still golf GOAT and Tiger may never catch up with him.

    Bradman is still cricket GOAT.

    The only current (or near-current) athletes considered GOAT in major sports are Federer, Phelps and Bolt. And even in Bolt's case, he is only GOAT of sprinting, not as an all-around athlete (Carl Lewis is still greater there due to dominating long jump as well).
     
  46. SQA333

    SQA333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,528
    So of all 4, Federer's resume is the most complete, and therefore he deserves GOAT.

    /thread
     
  47. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Actually, he ranks just ahead of Borg.

    Borg could never master any surface when he played at the US Open, whether grass, clay or hard - and often lost to US opponents (not only the greats like Mac and Connors but also the likes of Tanner and Stockton). He couldn't cope with the atmosphere of the New York crowd and the pressure of playing home opponents.

    Hence he is the only Open Era man with 5+ slams never to have won the US.
     
  48. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    [​IMG]

    please do tell what happened to sampras on clay then?

    Dominating hard and grass is less impressive than dominating grass and clay. And I only have federer ahead of borg by the thinnest of margins.
     
  49. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Lack on a FO title is Pete's only weakness.

    To be honest, Nadal has almost caught up with Borg. He has outdone him at the FO and the USO (2 of the 3 slams where Borg regularly competed). Yes he has only 2 W titles to Borg's 5 but then Borg never had to face Federer three times in the final.

    Borg does slightly better in terms of overall titles, including winning the YEC on carpet twice, and was ranked No 1 for slightly longer. Nevertheless Nadal has also won the AO and Olympics, big tournaments in his day (if not in Borg's).

    So you should be worrying about Nadal overtaking Borg - which he is close to doing - rather than Borg being ahead of Sampras.
     
  50. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    LMAO

    dude, you are a joke.

    We have to normalize Borg's slam count because he was playing in a 3 slams/year era.

    11 x 4/3 ~ 15 slams

    Add to that, Borg was grinding on clay with the best of them and 2 weeks later was serving and volleying with the best of them and won the real channel slam 3 times in a row.

    Nadal has to almost double his non-clay resume to surpass BORG. Fat chance that happens.
     

Share This Page