Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

[Zarfot Z]

They're both amazing athletes.

But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

They're both amazing athletes.

But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.

I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.

17 > 14

10federers

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

17 > 14

10federers

Yes, let your inner ******* shine!

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

Yes, let your inner ******* shine!

Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by scotus

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

Well, my apologies. I guess the smiley face didn't do much there.

I thought the baby on your avatar was so cute that I sort of made the connection between the baby and your inner ... that.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.

[firepanda]

Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.

Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?

I was only kidding about you being a ******* previously, but it actually may be true.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?

What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the better player?

[scotus]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.

So you think Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Isner are all "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the btter player?

Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.

I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by scotus

Yes, let your inner ******* shine!

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.

So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer

Keeping in mind that the majority of Fed's slam losses to Nadal came at FO where Sampras never even sniffed a final.

Originally Posted by scotus

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.

Actually in slams that Nadal has beaten Fed he's mostly as good or better than Fed.

At the FO which is where most of their slam meetings took place he's obviously much better than Fed.

On AO's plexicushion (introduced in 200 Nadal has one title, same as Fed.

Sure, Nadal also beat Fed in a Wimbledon final but he has an overall losing record against Fed in that regard (Wimbledon finals).

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.

I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Then you responded to that by saying 17 is greater than 14.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by zagor

So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer

What have you been drinking?

I would refer you back to my Post #31.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by scotus

I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.

Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)

[kalyan4fedever]

Federer, also he need to take some time off to work on a GOAT son he has yet to produce.

[firepanda]

Originally Posted by scotus

So you think Del Potro, Tipsarevic and Isner are all "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

Not Isner...

God only knows how he got in the top 10.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Not Isner...

God only knows how he got in the top 10.

Okay, so let's take Isner out of there then.

I'll say Tipsarevic has more endurance than Sampras, but you think he is "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

And you really think Delpo is "vastly more athletic" than sampras?

What's your definition of "vastly"?

IMHO, neither of the two is more athletic than Sampras.