NOT a GOAT thread, but Fed is better than Sampras

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

how much of Pete's hold% was bolstered due to the lightning fast surfaces that are non-existant today? how does Pete's hold % on clay compare to Federer's -- that should be a true measure of the effectiveness of his serve; i mean, karlovic served 78 aces on clay, and that should count for something?

Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.

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.

Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's not a wholly unreasonable assessment! How many would Fed have won on the surfaces of the 90's? A few less than he has, I'm sure.

Really? Because the last time I checked, Federer beat Sampras on fast grass playing S&V tennis, he also won 2003 Wimbledon playing 80% S&V. In contrast, Sampras was a failure on clay, he was not even a factor there. Federer has had matchup problems but he never sucked on a surface like Sampras and Ralph which makes the two one dimensional.

And Federer prefers the faster surfaces ANYWAY. So in theory he would've won more majors in the 90s. Tell me one major today that is even remotely fast compared to say 04/05 let alone the 90s. Heck even USO is slow today and it's only a matter of time when it's the same speed as AO. It's a joke how much the authorities have tampered with the surfaces.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.



Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?

yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.

you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.

[josofo]

Originally Posted by monfed

Really? Because the last time I checked, Federer beat Sampras on fast grass playing S&V tennis, he also won 2003 Wimbledon playing 80% S&V. In contrast, Sampras was a failure on clay, he was not even a factor there. Federer has had matchup problems but he never sucked on a surface like Sampras and Ralph which makes the two one dimensional.

And Federer prefers the faster surfaces ANYWAY. So in theory he would've won more majors in the 90s. Tell me one major today that is even remotely fast compared to say 04/05 let alone the 90s. Heck even USO is slow today and it's only a matter of time when it's the same speed as AO. It's a joke how much the authorities have tampered with the surfaces.

the slowing down of the sufaces is the biggest myth in tennis. they have only changed a bit, pete could stil serve in volley at wimbledon with no problem.

[Fedfan34]

Originally Posted by monfed

Really? Because the last time I checked, Federer beat Sampras on fast grass playing S&V tennis, he also won 2003 Wimbledon playing 80% S&V. In contrast, Sampras was a failure on clay, he was not even a factor there. Federer has had matchup problems but he never sucked on a surface like Sampras and Ralph which makes the two one dimensional.

And Federer prefers the faster surfaces ANYWAY. So in theory he would've won more majors in the 90s. Tell me one major today that is even remotely fast compared to say 04/05 let alone the 90s. Heck even USO is slow today and it's only a matter of time when it's the same speed as AO. It's a joke how much the authorities have tampered with the surfaces.

Cue Petetards in their periods raging in outrage about you bringing up a silly little FACT like that. What shocks me is how often Petetards forget that Roger won his first Wimbledon serving and volleying on a fast grass court. He changed his style because in his own words he didn't want people to "be able to beat me with one shot".

Also, Rafa to me is already superior to Sampras because he was similar to Sampras in that he was uncomfortable on a particular surface (hard court) but unlike Sampras, transcended the limitation, changed his game, and ended up winning the slam of that surface (US Open).

[Feather]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's not a wholly unreasonable assessment! How many would Fed have won on the surfaces of the 90's? A few less than he has, I'm sure.

Not that sure. He would have gotten more RG titles than today. Imagine if not for Rafael Nadal, how many titles he would have had on RG? So am sure he would have definitely gotten more than one clay Major..

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

"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.

lol, so using your subjective opinion is the preferred method of an objective, analytical observer -- plus you're neither analytical nor objective, so stop being so full of yourself. News flash: Federer surpasses Sampras by some distance in most metrics, not just titles. As far as competition is concerned, Mr. Sampras does not necessarily have a case for strong competiton when: his #2 was AWOL for most of his prime, no-slam wonder Rios as #1 during his prime, malivai washington in the finals of wimbledon, losing to Yzaga at the USO.. i'm not even bringing up clay or Gilbert Schaller or Delgado..

hey, here's Mr. "Rosewall hit 80 mph backhands" nonsense guy. question for you: did you mean 80 miles per hour or 80 meters per hour? i'm pretty sure you're not that stupid to claim the former.... the latter sounds pretty stupid too, so can you please elaborate what the "m" stood for?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by josofo

the slowing down of the sufaces is the biggest myth in tennis. they have only changed a bit, pete could stil serve in volley at wimbledon with no problem.

like how he S & V'ed his way to victory in 2002 against George Bastl?? good to know
news flash: they slowed down the wimby in 2002.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

Cue Petetards in their periods raging in outrage about you bringing up a silly little FACT like that. What shocks me is how often Petetards forget that Roger won his first Wimbledon serving and volleying on a fast grass court. He changed his style because in his own words he didn't want people to "be able to beat me with one shot".

Also, Rafa to me is already superior to Sampras because he was similar to Sampras in that he was uncomfortable on a particular surface (hard court) but unlike Sampras, transcended the limitation, changed his game, and ended up winning the slam of that surface (US Open).

QFT... don't worry, the Petetards will disregard your post.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.



Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

Good to see some Fed fans with an objective view on Sampras. There's no doubt Fed has exceeded Sampras's accomplishments but he was a great player nonetheless, at least top 5 all time. Some *******s make it look like Sampras would be schooled by Nalbandian!

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

And Sampras grew up on hard courts, yet Federer's record far surpasses Sampras in HC; so what's the point of bringing up where he grew up? Are you claiming that the fast surfaces didn't aid sampras more in holding serve than the slower surfaces of today? what BS -- the world's "greatest" serve comes up a cropper on clay. Here's a gentle reminder: the surfaces were slowed down (wimby, especially) because the tournament was turning into a serve fest. Are you still going to deny that Sampras had an easier time holding serve because the surfaces barring clay aided him?

yeah, Federer has more grass titles because he played warm up tourneys? and sampras didn't? it's Federer's fault that sampras lost early? what a moronic argument.. you seem to get into this mode anytime there's a Federer vs Sampras argument.

you don't get to define what a "normal" federer fan is. may be you like Sampras and Federer equally, so you play the objectivity card, and would clamor for them to be mentioned in the same breath -- but i don't have to. i
look at facts, and it's pretty evident that Federer is a league above sampras.

Please show me where I denied that fast surfaces aided the Sampras serve. And of course Federer has more titles on hardcourt. I never disputed that Federer was the better player. I just said that holding serve was something Sampras was better at than Federer. obviously the Federer return game was better than the Sampras return game, and obviously he's the more accomplished player. I never disputed any of this, you just assumed I did because your **** brain can't allow me to say that Sampras had a better hold game and wasn't as good on clay as Federer; you took those statements and extrapolated the remainder, none of which I believe. You have no idea what I'm talking about, and this post proves it.


For the record: no one considers you remotely objective, nor do they take you seriously. Everyone here knows you're one of the blindest ***** out there, including the Petetards and *******s. You're completely unobjective and have no connection with the reality of the situation, which is that, despite how much you despise it, the truth is that Sampras is among the best out there, and his hold game is NOT inferior to Federers. You can't win 14 majors, finish 6 years IN A ROW at number 1 without something special. For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!

[UBER Forehand]

Originally Posted by federerGOAT

Pete has NOTHING over Roger. Not even the serve. Pete's 2nd serve is incredibly overrated, its as if nobody could break him ever. Roger has a better 1st and 2nd serve with more disguise.

As much as I like Federer, Sampras had a 1000 aces year... in relative terms, he did the job better than many other people and I don't see Federer relying as heavily as Sampras did on his serve to win a match. With that said, many other strokes in Pete's arsenal were overrated; from what I have seen of the 80's and 90's tennis, Sampras is more or less a big serve and a wonderful net game... it did get him titles, but his limited abilities at the baseline showed off very easily when he had to face the situation: he lost more than often to guys nobody recalls on clay where the baseline game is put to the harshest of tests -- his was that of a 30th rank player, not of a world number one.

He had a good running forehand his fans will say and, surely he did make a few get into the highlights, but the fact of the matter is that no one spoke of Pete as if he was hammering his opponents with his forehands, doing a lot of damage with it, unlike we do remember of Federer or even Nadal by times... it was a good shot, but not an exceptional shot. As for his backhand have you ever seen Pete hit a big winner off of it? It was rare. Ever seen him leave short balls and have a hard time with it: that happened a lot. Again, we cannot say the same of Federer as, in the last two representations of the end of year championship, he out-hit players with specifically his backhand. Overall, at the baseline, Pete had something that could keep him in the match with players along the top 20-30, but as you got closer to top 10 ground stroke quality, his game was getting obviously insufficient at the baseline. That's why you see the results he had on clay: his baseline game wasn't good enough.

That's also why you see Federer on clay: his baseline game, even at 30 years old, is enough -- well, not only enough to play, but enough to win RG, enough to beat Djokovic in his best form, enough to take Nadal to a 5th set a few times... that's a baseline game. As for serving and receiving, I do grant Pete an edge on the serve as he did produce shots that were substantially superior to what was seen back then. On the return, however, all goes to Roger as we know him to be a very efficient returner, especially against players who hit bombs.

In the end, you look at the record and the question seems void: Federer is better a player than Sampras has ever been... even that dumb argument they made about Federer having an easier is void since he did in fact win A LOT more. In case people wondered, with limited titles, these statistics can be explained either by a weak competition or by the exceptional level Federer presented -- the facts only means there was a substantial relative difference between Federer and others; it states nothing about their actual abilities in an absolute sense. In short, these claims are complete non sequitur as they are not sufficient to force either conclusion over the other one. However, judging by the results Federer gets against much harsher competition when he is in his 31st year (he's 30) as opposed to what Sampras did, I think we can extrapolate he was in fact a better, much hard to defeat opponent than Sampras was. That, on the other hand, isn't a non sequitur.

[Fedfan34]

Originally Posted by kragster

Good to see some Fed fans with an objective view on Sampras. There's no doubt Fed has exceeded Sampras's accomplishments but he was a great player nonetheless, at least top 5 all time. Some *******s make it look like Sampras would be schooled by Nalbandian!

Sampras is one of the greatest players ever to grace a tennis court, and the sport is better off having had him be a part of it. He obviously had an amazing serve, wonderful running forehand, unbelievably explosive athleticism, and penetrating, near perfect volleys. His slam dunk will probably always be remembered.

Having said that, I just think Federer's game is a class above Pete's. I think he does everything (except for serving) better. I think the stats on how incredibly dominant he was in his prime on all surfaces CLEARLY show this, and how he continues to be a major contender on all surfaces despite nearing 31 just adds credibility to my claim. Pete based his whole legacy, his whole greatness around the number of slams won, and Roger won more in half the time. Nostalgic Sampras fans need to move forward and accept that he is not the best to play this game, but that doesn't mean he isn't in the top top tier.

Tennis progresses and moves forward. The game evolves, and players get better and better and better. In 20 years from now, Nadal and Djokovic and Federer's groundstrokes will probably look slow (and that is a pretty scary thing to imagine). What will make Federer stand out is his unique God given talent, and how much FUN he made it to watch this sport. In many ways, Roger is a combination of Borg, Agassi, and Sampras in one. He surpasses the dominance of Sampras, changed the game more than Borg, and is more beloved than Agassi.

[UBER Forehand]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

For pete, it was his hold game and attacking game. Come ON. Get a clue!

Two things: serve and volley. It seemed to work very well, but it's true that we can question the actual impact of these things separately as holding serve requires many things to go on as a whole and seeing his clay record might help to do so. However, we'd need to know the scores on several matches he had, as well as maybe the length of the average rally... maybe his serve had an impact only very few players could mimic, even on clay, but what if he didn't have that extra juice on the forehand or backhand from mid-court to end the point convincingly on a regular basis when playing on clay? Then, the end point blurs our vision of what was his serve simply because he couldn't finish properly what the serve allowed him to get. We might also find in some occasion a serve competition where he looses the match because he can't return well on clay. The point is that we can't jump to the conclusion as the one you responded to did.

In general, Sampras did hold his serve very well, exceptionally well, in fact and I think he was more of a threat as a server than Federer has ever been, although it's probably not that immense of an edge.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Why bring up the clay issue? Did you not read my post? I said that Pete's ground game didn't back up his serve as well as Federers, so of course Federer would have an equally easy time holding serve today because his groundstrokes cancel out the advantage that Pete's serve gives in the equation, so that Pete's serve+groundstrokes combo is not really better or worse than Federer's, except on clay, since FEDERER GREW UP ON IT.

Why the heck should Sampras's incompetence on a surface(in this case clay) be overlooked? I mean he was so mediocre/below average on clay that he was losing to nobodies there. And this incredible serve of his(which some say is a bigger weapon than a FH) amounted to zilch on clay. In other words it appeared that good because he played on lightning quick surfaces of the 90s. Plus his weak ground game is no excuse to exempt him from his performance on clay. Edberg a pure S&Ver/net rusher reached the finals of RG and almost won it.

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Get a clue, you're completely biased; that's like saying that Roddick's hold and winning percentage on clay should be the true measure of how effective his serve is compared to Federer's. It's shameless bias, and you know it. There's no reason to say clay vs. other surfaces is a better indicator. I could just as easily say that old grass is the best indicator of how well you hold serve, since you NEED to hold serve to have a chance.

But i'm not going to say that, because it's nonsense. So I'm playing by the hold percentage.

A serve's effectiveness includes not just speed/power but also placement and guile. Federer's serve is more about placement and guile, it's hard to get a read on his serve. That's the one complaint most of his opponents have,they just can't figure out his serve placement. Roddick's serve is more about power, so it depends what your definition of effectiveness is.

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Right, Federer has more grass titles because he played warmup tournaments. Sampras has more Wimbledons, where it really counts. and no, the only person who should be embarassed is you, telling someone to be objective when you're the single most biased person in the thread.

You talk as if Sampras has 3-5 more Wimby's than Federer. It's just one more and Federer lost that 08 final 9-7 in the fifth , so it's not a lot. If Federer had won the 08 Wimby,then he'd currently have 7 consecutive Wimby's surpassing Sampras's 7 Wimby's in a 8 year period.

And BTW Federer has won 65 consecutive grass matches,Pete has not. Federer has won 5 consecutive Wimby's ,Pete has not. If Federer wins one more Wimby, then Sampras would have to pat his 6 Year end championships a little more.

Originally Posted by Cup8489

You make normal Fed fans look bad. And Sampras absolutely deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer.

Sampras's incompetence on clay exempts him from putting him in the same bracket as Federer. You'll just have to deal with it.

[kragster]

Originally Posted by Fedfan34

Sampras is one of the greatest players ever to grace a tennis court, and the sport is better off having had him be a part of it. He obviously had an amazing serve, wonderful running forehand, unbelievably explosive athleticism, and penetrating, near perfect volleys. His slam dunk will probably always be remembered.

Having said that, I just think Federer's game is a class above Pete's. I think he does everything (except for serving) better. I think the stats on how incredibly dominant he was in his prime on all surfaces CLEARLY show this, and how he continues to be a major contender on all surfaces despite nearing 31 just adds credibility to my claim. Pete based his whole legacy, his whole greatness around the number of slams won, and Roger won more in half the time. Nostalgic Sampras fans need to move forward and accept that he is not the best to play this game, but that doesn't mean he isn't in the top top tier.

Tennis progresses and moves forward. The game evolves, and players get better and better and better. In 20 years from now, Nadal and Djokovic and Federer's groundstrokes will probably look slow (and that is a pretty scary thing to imagine). What will make Federer stand out is his unique God given talent, and how much FUN he made it to watch this sport. In many ways, Roger is a combination of Borg, Agassi, and Sampras in one. He surpasses the dominance of Sampras, changed the game more than Borg, and is more beloved than Agassi.

Fed had incredibly dominant years but I think we should not afford that abnormally high value because at the end the total accomplishments count more than how you got there. If Fed doesn't win any more slams he will end at 16, only 2 slams ahead of Pete. To me that difference is big enough to say that Fed is clearly ahead but not big enough to put them in different tiers.For example I put Rafa and Agassi in the same tier as of now, although Rafa's dominance far exceeds anything Agassi had!

[Nathaniel_Near]

16 >> 14 is a lame argument. What really puts Roger ahead of Pete is his Roland Garros title and his period of rarely paralleled dominance.

16 and 14 are virtually the same if you just look at numbers.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

16 >> 14 is a lame argument. What really puts Roger ahead of Pete is his Roland Garros title and his period of rarely paralleled dominance.

16 and 14 are virtually the same if you just look at numbers.

agree to an extent, 16 > 14 is only a part of the argument. What is more striking is the difference in surface versatility and dominance , both areas in which federer edges out sampras by a huge margin .....

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

16 >> 14 is a lame argument. What really puts Roger ahead of Pete is his Roland Garros title and his period of rarely paralleled dominance.

16 and 14 are virtually the same if you just look at numbers.

No it's not !

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by TMF

No it's not !

You are one of the many insufferable Federer fans. *Shows you the hand*