A billion Reasons why Sampras is the GOAT.

[samprasvsfederer123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GPm...eature=related

federer only had nadal to stop him, sampras had a much harder time, federer might be the better overall player cause he could do something good in clay but when these two face each others' strengths like grass, or hard court no matter the speed of the courts i think sampras would win. sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by samprasvsfederer123

sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

I wonder.

Sampras is generally regarded as having one of, if not the greatest serve is the history of the game. His volleys are considered very strong, probably second tier (behind McEnroe, Edberg, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, etc.) in the history of the game.

How good would he have been without both?

[samprasvsfederer123]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I wonder.

Sampras is generally regarded as having one of, if not the greatest serve is the history of the game. His volleys are considered very strong, probably second tier (behind McEnroe, Edberg, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, etc.) in the history of the game.

How good would he have been without both?

is this a real question or are you trying to intimidate my position lol?

[Carsomyr]

1. His lack of a French Open title, and thus a career slam, is the most obvious flaw in his resume. He played in an era with a few tough clay courters, but none of them named "Nadal," "Borg," or "Rosewall." The Grand Slams are far and away the most important tournaments in the tennis world, and if you're missing one or more, it seriously hurts your case. True, it doesn't stop Borg or Rosewall from being mentioned, but they sure as hell got a lot closer to winning the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, respectively, than Sampras ever did at the French Open. Sampras was never considered much of a threat on clay, and clay consists of approximately a third of the tennis season.

2. Even before Roger won 15, Sampras's record 14 Slams hardly cemented his place as GOAT. Going back to the Career Slam discussion, Rosewall had (and still has) more majors than anyone, even if we discount his amateur Slams. However, despite being mentioned in the GOAT discussion among Open Era and pre-Open Era contenders, he is rarely rated above Laver, due in large part to his lack of a Wimbledon title, widely considered the most important tournament in the game, despite his success at majors on grass.

3. Yes, he finished six straight seasons as the World #1, which is extremely impressive, but few of those seasons can be considered particularly dominant. Arguably his best season, 1994 saw Pete attain career highs in titles (10) and winning percentage (87). However, Federer and Borg both had four straight seasons winning 87% or better of their matches, and winning 10 titles or more was common place for a lot of great players.

4. Speaking of dominance, Sampras lost quite a few Slam matches to players we can rightfully call clowns in retrospect, even if we ignore his antics at the French Open (though we shouldn't) - his 1994 U.S. Open loss to Yzaga, getting demolished at the 1996 Aussie Open by Philippoussis, and another laugher at the AO against Kucera in '98.

5. His record against Agassi, his chief rival, is obviously impressive, one of the few things that makes him stand out when discussing his GOAT status. Why? We all know Federer's objectively abysmal record against Nadal, but Laver was 5-7 in major finals against Rosewall and Borg was 1-3 against McEnroe. However, in all of the cases except Sampras and Agassi, there is a considerable discrepancy in the age of the rivals - Federer and Rosewall have around five years on Nadal and Laver, respectively, and Borg is almost three years older than McEnroe. It isn't just the decline of physical skills, but also changes in motivation, what surfaces were played on, and other influences that must be acknowledged.

6. The source you provided adds very little to the discussion, unless credibility has suddenly become measured by the amount of times you can use the word "smoke" to illustrate your points.

Anyone else, feel free to add more!

[President of Serve/Volley]

I stand by this statment: Losing Tim, he lost the French Open.... Tim's goal for Sampras was to win the FO... I bet if Tim didn't die, Pete would have won the FO.

[CHOcobo]

Originally Posted by samprasvsfederer123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GPm...eature=related

federer only had nadal to stop him, sampras had a much harder time, federer might be the better overall player cause he could do something good in clay but when these two face each others' strengths like grass, or hard court no matter the speed of the courts i think sampras would win. sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

you just stated he's a better player. haha

nadal being the only person to stop him doesn't mean he had it easy. so he had to be stopped by many more players to be closer to goat? doesn't that mean you loose more games? federer just makes everything looks easy.

im not saying pete sucks or anything. i think he has the best serves ever but both at their prime, federer is the victor. by far everything here is too subjective, but it makes it fun.

[pundekman]

Carsomyr;4120512]1. His lack of a French Open title, and thus a career slam, is the most obvious flaw in his resume. He played in an era with a few tough -.....
years older than McEnroe. It isn't just the decline of physical skills, but also changes in motivation, what surfaces were played on, and other influences that must be acknowledged.

6. The source you provided adds very little to the discussion, unless credibility has suddenly become measured by the amount of times you can use the word "smoke" to illustrate your points.

Anyone else, feel free to add more![/quote]

Wow, good one. took the words right out of my keyboard.

[aphex]

good post carsomyr.

[Fed Kennedy]

Sampras was great. But Fed is the greatest. Sampras was a balling *** american with no clay game. He just loses out overall. Roger beat rafa on clay in MADRID in a final this year. Thats crazy. Bad luck for rafa to lose to a zoning soderling at FO, but Fed got the job done.
15 slams at 28? Ridiculous.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

1. His lack of a French Open title, and thus a career slam, is the most obvious flaw in his resume. He played in an era with a few tough clay courters, but none of them named "Nadal," "Borg," or "Rosewall." The Grand Slams are far and away the most important tournaments in the tennis world, and if you're missing one or more, it seriously hurts your case. True, it doesn't stop Borg or Rosewall from being mentioned, but they sure as hell got a lot closer to winning the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, respectively, than Sampras ever did at the French Open. Sampras was never considered much of a threat on clay, and clay consists of approximately a third of the tennis season.

2. Even before Roger won 15, Sampras's record 14 Slams hardly cemented his place as GOAT. Going back to the Career Slam discussion, Rosewall had (and still has) more majors than anyone, even if we discount his amateur Slams. However, despite being mentioned in the GOAT discussion among Open Era and pre-Open Era contenders, he is rarely rated above Laver, due in large part to his lack of a Wimbledon title, widely considered the most important tournament in the game, despite his success at majors on grass.

3. Yes, he finished six straight seasons as the World #1, which is extremely impressive, but few of those seasons can be considered particularly dominant. Arguably his best season, 1994 saw Pete attain career highs in titles (10) and winning percentage (87). However, Federer and Borg both had four straight seasons winning 87% or better of their matches, and winning 10 titles or more was common place for a lot of great players.

4. Speaking of dominance, Sampras lost quite a few Slam matches to players we can rightfully call clowns in retrospect, even if we ignore his antics at the French Open (though we shouldn't) - his 1994 U.S. Open loss to Yzaga, getting demolished at the 1996 Aussie Open by Philippoussis, and another laugher at the AO against Kucera in '98.

5. His record against Agassi, his chief rival, is obviously impressive, one of the few things that makes him stand out when discussing his GOAT status. Why? We all know Federer's objectively abysmal record against Nadal, but Laver was 5-7 in major finals against Rosewall and Borg was 1-3 against McEnroe. However, in all of the cases except Sampras and Agassi, there is a considerable discrepancy in the age of the rivals - Federer and Rosewall have around five years on Nadal and Laver, respectively, and Borg is almost three years older than McEnroe. It isn't just the decline of physical skills, but also changes in motivation, what surfaces were played on, and other influences that must be acknowledged.

6. The source you provided adds very little to the discussion, unless credibility has suddenly become measured by the amount of times you can use the word "smoke" to illustrate your points.

Anyone else, feel free to add more!

that's only 6.

[Azzurri]

LOL, some just don't see the big picture. Everyone knows Fed would own Pete on clay. But on nay other surface Pete would have a better h2h. NOT because of skill either but because Pete possessed a stronger mental game. Fed looks flashier and plays in an era with garbage (except Nadal) competition (many freely admit they are defeated even before getting into the ring with this guy) with slower courts. Don't get me wrong, I think the two are neck and neck and some days I think Fed is the best and others Pete is. But everytime I read some of the ridiculous reasons the teenagers give on these threads, I pick PETE!

[flying24]

Lets dissect your epic post of fail one step at a time.

TITLE- A billion Reasons why Sampras is the GOAT

Sorry you dont even come close to listing a billion.

federer only had nadal to stop him

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.

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.

sampras had a much harder time

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.

sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

Yes Sampras still could win alot of slams with just an ok serve and never coming to net. Thanks for the laughs.

[zapvor]

i still dont get it. to say sampras is more GOAT then fed is akin to saying michael jordan is a better baseball player than jackie robinson or babe ruth.

plain and simple, by the facts, the facts i repeat, fed has accomplished more on the tennis court then sampras has, in LESS amount of time. in every aspect. the only thing i may give sampras is he had better serves, but that doesnt matter really. who cares if i could serve 200mph. if i couldnt win my matches, it amounts to little. (ie. roddick/karlovic).

[zapvor]

good post flying

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by zapvor

i still dont get it. to say sampras is more GOAT then fed is akin to saying michael jordan is a better baseball player than jackie robinson or babe ruth.

plain and simple, by the facts, the facts i repeat, fed has accomplished more on the tennis court then sampras has, in LESS amount of time. in every aspect. the only thing i may give sampras is he had better serves, but that doesnt matter really. who cares if i could serve 200mph. if i couldnt win my matches, it amounts to little. (ie. roddick/karlovic).

you're still a complete tool.

who would make this silly comparison. MJ is a basketball player and should not be compared to anyone else but a basketball player. I never,m ever heard anyone make a ridiculous comment like Jordan was better than Ruth (if you think saying Pete is better than Fed is the same comment, then you are a bigger tool than I thought).

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by flying24

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.

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.

the rest of your "rant" is pure balony. good job wasting 20 minutes to be completely wrong (as confirmed by Zapvor who agreed with you).

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by zapvor

i still dont get it. to say sampras is more GOAT then fed is akin to saying michael jordan is a better baseball player than jackie robinson or babe ruth.

plain and simple, by the facts, the facts i repeat, fed has accomplished more on the tennis court then sampras has, in LESS amount of time. in every aspect. the only thing i may give sampras is he had better serves, but that doesnt matter really. who cares if i could serve 200mph. if i couldnt win my matches, it amounts to little. (ie. roddick/karlovic).

here you go folks. this truly shows Zapvors complete ignorance on tennis. You should stick to your MAC thread.

[lambielspins]

Originally Posted by samprasvsfederer123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6GPm...eature=related

federer only had nadal to stop him, sampras had a much harder time, federer might be the better overall player cause he could do something good in clay but when these two face each others' strengths like grass, or hard court no matter the speed of the courts i think sampras would win. sampras could have a dazzling game even without serve and volleying.

So says the poster who believes Roddick playing the same tennis he couldnt beat a 34 year old Agassi with would destroy Federer and the other top players of today:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...ck#post3562943

[aphex]

Originally Posted by flying24

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.

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.

^^^^^^
great post.

Originally Posted by Azzurri

you're still a complete tool.

who would make this silly comparison. MJ is a basketball player and should not be compared to anyone else but a basketball player. I never,m ever heard anyone make a ridiculous comment like Jordan was better than Ruth (if you think saying Pete is better than Fed is the same comment, then you are a bigger tool than I thought).

see above post for complete pwnage of delusional sampras muppet fanboys such as yourself.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by aphex

^^^^^^
great post.







see above post for complete pwnage of delusional sampras muppet fanboys such as yourself.

LOL...great response. Thanks for setting me straight.