Originally Posted by hoodjem
(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)
It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.
Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based (by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.
Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy), because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.
I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.
You are right. I like Pete but he overhyped his slam record WAY too much. That was never that impressive a record. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, and possibly a few others, would all have more slams than even Federer currently has, let alone Sampras, had Open Era tennis been around then. His most impressive records were always his 7 Wimbledons (which he still shares, and IMO his 7 in 8 years is more impressive than Federer's 7 in 10) and his 6 straight year end #1st, along with his fabulous U.S Open record including 5 titles, 8 finals, and which showed amazing longevity at the event with 12 years spread of his first and last titles. However by building up his not that astounding slam mark so much, he indeed has rendered himself irrelevant by Federer breaking it. Federer meanwhile is overhyped and too easily coronated in GOAT debates due to not only his current player status, but thanks to Pete's overvaluing of his own slam mark. Federer has Pete to thank for much of his over the top GOAT coronation these days, LOL!