View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 08:21 AM   #64
Steve0904
Legend
 
Steve0904's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NL, Canada
Posts: 6,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
People aren't really going to remember when Federer won his slams, though. Can you name all of Sampras's slams off the top of your head?

In 40 years, when players are playing into their 40s regularly, more than one player will pass Federer's slam count, be it 18 or 19.
I don't know if players will ever play into their 40's consistently. Be serious now. Besides that, you totally missed the point. It's not about naming when Federer or Sampras won all their slams, zagor is saying it's about getting to 19. It doesn't matter when you won them. Btw, yes, in fact I could name all of Sampras's and Federer's slams without looking it up quite easily, and I'm sure plenty of others could to.


Quote:
That's because it hasn't been around very long. Come talk to me in 40 years.
But that doesn't change the fact that right now the Olympics is not incredibly important, and a once every 4 years event should never stack up to the slams IMO.


Quote:
And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's *** about the Australian Open back in the day, either.
But again the Aussie Open is a once a year event. The Olympics is once every 4 years

Quote:
I'm a Federer fan, actually. I'm just stating my opinion on which would be better for Federer's legacy.
Fair enough.

Quote:
In terms of ranking the greats, it does. Andre Agassi has a permanent place in the pantheon of tennis greats thanks to his career golden slam. Take away the Olympics gold and it loses some of its shine. Take away the French Open and it loses all of its shine - his career becomes real a disappointment given his potential.
True, but if you take away his FO, he'd still have 7 slams, and he'd still be a tennis great. His career doesn't lose all of its shine. Come on now. If you take away his gold medal he still has his career slam, which is much more important than a gold medal. He just happens to have both. For example Sampras is still better than Agassi in a lot of people's minds.

Quote:
Winning all of the biggest events is what makes a complete career. The Olympics have gained a major prestige in tennis over the last 8 years, and they'll continue to do so as time passes. When looking back on Federer's career, it'll be noteworthy that he never won the gold medal in singles.
I think the Olympics has only started to get really huge this year honestly, but besides that, guys like McEnroe, Borg, and Connors didn't even get a chance at the Olympics. Is it noteworthy that they never won? Sure Federer has lost his chances when the other guys didn't even get any, but as of now the only guy anybody will put above him is Nadal, and he needs more accomplishments. The fact that Nadal doesn't as of yet have a title at the YEC is a bigger hole in his resume IMO than the gold medal, because the YEC has always had prestigious history. DC is a team event, and has no place in a singles discussion IMO, but that's neither here nor there.


Quote:
And if Federer struggled as much as Sampras on clay, all of a sudden, his argument for GOAT is an intense debate for everyone. As of right now, only the Sampras ***** are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.
But he didn't struggle so this is a moot point.


Quote:
That's right - the weaker aspects of Federer/Sampras's careers are what make the difference. If they were even in those weaker parts, the debate is no longer one-sided in Federer's favor. In fact, it's a dead heat.

Sampras has 8 US Open finals and 5 titles to Federer's 6 and 5. Federer has 8 Wimbledon finals and 7 titles to Sampras's 7 and 7. Same number of faster major slam totals, but Sampras has one more final. So I give Sampras a very slight edge to this point.
All this is your opinion so that's fair enough. But it's very debatable, for example H2H 1-0 Federer, and that match took place on grass when Federer was 19 and Sampras was a 4 time defending champion at Wimbledon. Yes Sampras wasn't in his prime then, but that's another area where Fed is better than Sampras. He's done much better at an advanced age. But we shouldn't turn this into a Sampras-Federer debate.
Steve0904 is offline   Reply With Quote