Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen
What I got from TMF's post was that before Federer came along Sampras was ranked up there with Laver and the rest of the best. I would say that some even ranked him as the best. Do you agree with this or was Sampras generally never put up on the GOAT pedestal?
The issue is that Federer has now overtaken his records and they are comparable (not spread out in time enough to be considered an apples to oranges comparison), so he is generally placed above Sampras. In response to this, it seems like Sampras has been demoted to account for the relative difference between Fed and Sampras so that Fed didn't shoot up too high above that group at the top. What TMF suggested (from what I read) is that it seems like the position of Sampras is variable while the past greats remain fixed, as their records are different enough to bypass any direct comparison. Do you agree with any of this?
I hope my rambling makes sense, I am a bit busy.
I actually think that acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you.
I hope my tone is more friendly in this post.
I don't think any old-timers want to address this question because they know the answer. It's painfully true for Sampras and his fans that Roger hurt his stature while Laver continue to gain more credibility over Sampras(at the expense of Roger continue to play). In 2002 that wasn't the case, Sampras was the man, many of the experts today who said Roger is the greatest were the ones who said sampras was the greatest.
THis is wrong. Both Sampras/Laver should be judge(or compare to each other) during the time Sampras retire since their accomplishments are completed. You can't use the future player's(ie Fed, Nadal) succcess to reevaluate their status.
My problem is that if