Lets dissect your epic post of fail one step at a time.
Sorry you dont even come close to listing a billion.
In that case Sampras from 93-2000 had nobody almost all the time. Agassi was only really around in summer 94-summer 95 and spring 99-winter 2000 when Sampras won only 3 of his 12 slams during this frame. He denied Sampras a grand total of 2 slams during this mere roughly 2 years of "non slump" play. Becker and Edberg were well past their primes by 1993. Courier had one remaining year of prime level tennis- 1993, then was a shadow of himself thereafter. Chang is a poor mans Hewitt. Ivanisevic is a more talented but mentally flakier Roddick clone, with nowhere near Roddick's ability to perform with any success on hard courts. Krajicek is an even weaker and more oft injured Ivanisevic clone of sorts. Rafter was a late bloomer whose overall career does not even stack up to the likes of Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick (despite having 1 more slam than Roddick). Henman was a poor mans Rafter. Kafelnikov was a pedestrian baseliner who tennis wise looks like a Davydenko clone at best.
sorry Pete did not win every grand slam he entered. So he lost to players of all sorts. That PROVES the competition was better. You can spin it all you want, but the 90's had a better/variety of players and actually different speeds (courts) at each major. This "blanket" era is a joke.
Most times Sampras denied himself slam winning chances it was due to inexplicable losses like Yzaga at the 94 U.S Open, Schaller at the 95 French Open, a pre prime Philippoussis at the 96 Australian Open, his pigeon Kafelnikov at the 96 French Open, Krajicek at Wimbledon 96, Norman at the 97 French Open, Korda at the 97 U.S Open, Kucera at the 98 Australian Open, Delgado at the 98 French Open, another of his longtime pigeons Rafter at the 98 U.S Open, his own bizarre withdrawal from the 99 Australian Open,
his loss to Philippoussis the clay court clutz at the 2000 French Open.
Very rarely was it due to losses to the built up major rivals who apart from Agassi for roughly 2 years, and Courier for 1 year, were mostly out of their primes or badly out of form during this whole time period anyway.
By contrast Nadal has denied Federer 7 slam titles. Sampras is very lucky to not have had anyone of Nadal's calibre playing his own top level tennis consistently at the same time, who was also a bad matchup for him. Basically someone who presented the matchup issues of Krajicek but who had the ability (not playing style) of Agassi, and the consistency of Nadal himself, and then you might have come close. Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Nalbandian, have all played their own prime level tennis for atleast 2+ years (most longer than that) of Federer's time regularly winning slams from mid 2003-end of 2009. A sharp contrast to Becker, Edberg, Courier, and Agassi in that regard, and those players are easily as good or better than all the others Sampras faced. Federer by far had it tougher than did Sampras.
He certainly had a much harder time avoiding embarassing losses to players outside the top 10 in slams as shown above. Yet he still has only 1 fewer slam at this point (granted that is almost certain to increase). Wow just goes to show how much weaker the competition Sampras faced, all those horrible losses in slams vs the near invincability of Federer (apart from 1 player) and still not yet way behind in slams.
Yes Sampras still could win alot of slams with just an ok serve and never coming to net. Thanks for the laughs.