NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras

[Fedfan34]

So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 21st century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-*** v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.

[jaggy]

But Pete dominated his rivals.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by jaggy

But Pete dominated his rivals.

really? I like how you left out Krajicek, Stich and Edberg.... hell, Ferreira pwned Sampras indoors. Krajicek was b!tch slapping Sampras at every opportunity (leading 6-2) until he got injured, and sampras collected the last 2 of his wins.

also, it helps to have no rivalries on your weaker surface. Pete got torn himself torn new ones many times on clay, in the early rounds, so he never met his "rivals" on clay.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

really? I like how you left out Krajicek, Stich and Edberg.... hell, Ferreira pwned Sampras indoors. Krajicek was b!tch slapping Sampras at every opportunity (leading 6-2) until he got injured, and sampras collected the last 2 of his wins.

also, it helps to have no rivalries on your weaker surface. Pete got torn himself torn new ones many times on clay, in the early rounds, so he never met his "rivals" on clay.

Wait a minute. How did Crampras ever get beaten let alone trail a H2H since his serve could never be broken?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by jaggy

But Pete dominated his rivals.

If Pete had played half his matches on clay vs his rivals - I don't think he would have had a dominant record. You know what I am referring to.....

[Seth]

Dumb thread is dumb.

[jackson vile]

[fed_rulz]

comparing Sampras to Federer is like comparing VW to Ferrari. I just hope Federer obliterates the reminder of the sampras records, just for the kicks.

[merwy]

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

So this is not a GOAT thread, I'm not claiming that Federer is the greatest of all time, as Ralph and Djesus still have plenty of time themselves to man up and take it for themselves. Some will say oldies like Pancho Gonzales or Bill Tilden or Laver could take Fed on. I'm not commenting on that.

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 20th century. Roger is better than Pete in almost every way possible. Even his volleys are more natural than Pete's, and he has to volley off of balls that are coming MUCH faster at him than anything Pete had to volley off of. Seriously, watch Sampr-*** v. Rafter 1998 US Open. If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

The ONLY thing Pete has over Roger is the serve. THAT'S IT. Time for the flat earthers, civil war re-enacters, and birthers of the Petetard movement to come out of the shadows of the Bronze Age of 90s tennis into the light of the modern game.

Although I agree with you in that Federer is better than Sampras.. this thread is just asking to get flamed. I have no idea why you created this thread, it is completely irrelevant to anything that is currently going on in tennis, it looks as if you're just trying to annoy Sampras fans (i.e. trolling)

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

comparing Sampras to Federer is like comparing VW to Ferrari. I just hope Federer obliterates the reminder of the sampras records, just for the kicks.

And I don't even know what to say about this. It used to be just the Nadal fans that were stupid trolls, but it seems that the *******s are making a decent effort to obtain the same reputation..

[Fedfan34]

Originally Posted by merwy

Although I agree with you in that Federer is better than Sampras.. this thread is just asking to get flamed. I have no idea why you created this thread, it is completely irrelevant to anything that is currently going on in tennis, it looks as if you're just trying to annoy Sampras fans (i.e. trolling)




And I don't even know what to say about this. It used to be just the Nadal fans that were stupid trolls, but it seems that the *******s are making a decent effort to obtain the same reputation..

I like to state truths that tick people off. There is no question about that. But the fact of the matter is that I *am* stating truths.

Pete Sampras was the best player of the 90s. There's no question. But that statement requires many asterisks and sidenotes along with it, such as the fact that he could not win a match at the French Open to save his life in the latter part of his career, and lost to some pretty forgettable players like the great Yzaga at important events like...the AUSTRALIAN OPEN.

Pete Sampras was the greatest champion to walk on the courts of Wimbledon. Again, 7 titles means we can't question that statement. But again, we have to consider that Pete was losing so quickly at the French that he had so much more time to recover in the wake of that tournament such that by the time the rest of the field arrived on grass tired from actually you know, playing at the French Open, Petros started off nice and fresh from the extra time.

Pete Sampras had a winning record against his rival Agassi. Again, no question, but firstly, Pete lost on clay so much at the French he rarely had to play him there in the latter parts of his career, thus skewing the head to head in his favor at the slams. And Nadal is a VASTLY superior player to Agassi.

Thanks for the explanation of what trolling is by the way.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

The whole game has changed today. Comparing the volleys Pete had to face vs. what Fed has to face is like, well, there is no comparison. Ball is moving much faster today and Pete would have looked like a mediocre volleyer in today's game.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

The whole game has changed today. Comparing the volleys Pete had to face vs. what Fed has to face is like, well, there is no comparison. Ball is moving much faster today and Pete would have looked like a mediocre volleyer in today's game.

^^^ Dumbest post of the week! Yeah, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Philippoussis, Stich, etc., were all pushers compared to today's manly men on the ATP tour. Hahaha!

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

^^^ Dumbest post of the week! Yeah, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Philippoussis, Stich, etc., were all pushers compared to today's manly men on the ATP tour. Hahaha!

Quoted for truth. As a big Federer fan, I am embarrassed by some of the comments by the *******s here. I do believe that Federer is overall a better player. I did a stroke by stroke comparision in a previous thread. It is close, but it's Fed by a nose due to a better backhand and forehand. However, Pete takes the serve, especially the second serve and the volleys. Pete never missed the easy volleys Roger does.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by sunof tennis

Quoted for truth. As a big Federer fan, I am embarrassed by some of the comments by the *******s here. I do believe that Federer is overall a better player. I did a stroke by stroke comparision in a previous thread. It is close, but it's Fed by a nose due to a better backhand and forehand. However, Pete takes the serve, especially the second serve and the volleys. Pete never missed the easy volleys Roger does.

no, it's not. your stroke by stroke comparisons are a product of your subjectivity; look at the results, and you'll get an objective view. Compared to Sampras, Federer has more majors, masters, more titles on grass, clay and hard, more finals, SFs, much more dominant, and according to you, it is close? are you kidding me? you should be embarrassed by your own posts, not of your fellow *******s'.

sampras should consider himself lucky that he gets mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

no, it's not. your stroke by stroke comparisons are a product of your subjectivity; look at the results, and you'll get an objective view. Compared to Sampras, Federer has more majors, masters, more titles on grass, clay and hard, more finals, SFs, much more dominant, and according to you, it is close? are you kidding me? you should be embarrassed by your own posts, not of your fellow *******s'.

sampras should consider himself lucky that he gets mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

"Fed Rulz?" Hahaha! With a handle like that, certainly you are a p a r a g o n of perspective and objectivity. Have you ever seen Sampras play live? Federer? Any other greats? Who was Federer's main competition between 2003-2007 when he collected most of his titles? Counting up titles as the exclusive measure of greatness is hardly the method of an objective, analytical observer.

PS: I can't imagine why "p a r a g o n" would be a problematic word on TT.

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

no, it's not. your stroke by stroke comparisons are a product of your subjectivity; look at the results, and you'll get an objective view. Compared to Sampras, Federer has more majors, masters, more titles on grass, clay and hard, more finals, SFs, much more dominant, and according to you, it is close? are you kidding me? you should be embarrassed by your own posts, not of your fellow *******s'.

sampras should consider himself lucky that he gets mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

If you do not think they are close, then you are the one who is not being objective. The Tennis Channel countdown, while flawed, had Sampras in the top 5 of the men of all time. How is that not close? If you don't think Sampras' serve was better than Roger's (and Roger's is very good) then you clearly do not know much about tennis.

[BevelDevil]

Yeah, Fed is better than Sampras, but don't most people think that already?

What I wonder about is Laver vs. Sampras.

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

If such creme puff returns were coming off his opponent's racket, hell even Nadal would serve and volley.

Did Agassi have creme puff returns?

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by BevelDevil

Yeah, Fed is better than Sampras, but don't most people think that already?

What I wonder about is Laver vs. Sampras.




Did Agassi have creme puff returns?

Rod could pass from anywhere on court. On either wing, from whatever depth. He had "all the strokes." Pete's first volley had better be a really good one. Rod could move--great wheels. Not only could he get to the ball, but have an arsenal of shots on Rolodex ready to be called on in stroking it.

[Povl Carstensen]

I guess it is pretty obvious, because the clay record seals the deal...

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

This thread is simply to move the Petetards from the dark ages into the 20th century.

Sampras won 13 out of his 14 slams in the 20th century genius.

P.S. now that's an example of a *fact*.

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

I like to state truths that tick people off. There is no question about that. But the fact of the matter is that I *am* stating truths.

No, the fact of the matter is that you're stating your *opinion* on who's the better player between two of the best players of the open era.