Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by tennisMVP
Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.

Originally Posted by Goosehead

It dosnt make up for not winning one of the majors..sampras was too rubbish to win the french or even be in the final.

anyhow federer is the greatest wimbledon player ever, by far.

You are both incorrect. Neither player is the best W or USO player BY FAR. It is a very close race between both, hardly a BY FAR situation.

[NadalAgassi]

Arguably the best fast court player all time, and overall definitely top 5.

[DropShotArtist]

In 5 years time, Sampras will drop down to Tier 3. Nadal and Laver will be Tier 2 (possibly Djoker, but maybe not).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

That is his only weak spot.

However his strengths are above almost everyone else's, so yes he definitely deserves a place in the GOAT discussion.

Don't forget that almost every GOAT contender has a weakness in their resume somewhere.

Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by tennisMVP

Sampras is the greatest Wimbledon player ever, by far, and the greatest US Open player ever by far.

Fed's got better winning % than Sampras at both majors (not to mention across the surfaces as a whole). He's got more grass and hard court titles. Plus he beat Sampras the one time they met in 2001 at Wimbledon (with Sampras as defending champ). 5 consecutive Wimbledons + greatest match ever. 5 consecutive U.S. opens. 4 consecutive Atlantic slams (Wimbledon and U.S. Open back to back). Yeah f*** my logic.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by cc0509

You are both incorrect. Neither player is the best W or USO player BY FAR. It is a very close race between both, hardly a BY FAR situation.

do try and keep up old bean..i was taking the mickey out of him when i said 'by far'.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by smoledman

The point is certain people on this board hold that "dominating all your main rivals" is the #1 GOAT criterium.

Correct... a point which gets demonstrated over and over in some weird mass lapse of IQ occurrence once a month.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

In 5 years time, Sampras will drop down to Tier 3. Nadal and Laver will be Tier 2 (possibly Djoker, but maybe not).

Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!

Laver's competition was probably weaker even more than Sampras'. How else do you think Sampras was able to dominate the 2nd and 3rd best players so well? Because his era was weak. Fed will have the 2nd best player of all time (Nadal) and possibly the 3rd of 4th best in Djoker.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Laver tier 2? ROFL.. STOP!!

For winning a CYGS in 1969?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Well he also has a weaker Masters 1000 resume compared to other greats. His numbers there are just not very impressive compared to other legends. He's got 11. People with more than him include Djokovic, Becker, Borg, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, Federer, Nadal and Lendl. And Fed and Nadal and Lendl almost have twice as much.

You could even throw in Laver as well (having more Masters 1000's than Sampras). Laver won 14 Masters 1000 equivalents, AFTER THE AGE OF 30. For whatever reason Sampras didn't focus on Masters 1000's. It was only when I put together the Open Era rankings thread that I noticed this gap in his Resume.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445573

Having said that I still think he is top 5 of all time.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by timnz

You could even throw in Laver as well (having more Masters 1000's than Sampras). Laver won 14 Masters 1000 equivalents, AFTER THE AGE OF 30. For whatever reason Sampras didn't focus on Masters 1000's. It was only when I put together the Open Era rankings thread that I noticed this gap in his Resume.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=445573

Having said that I still think he is top 5 of all time.

1000 tournaments should not be in consideration when talking about GOAT, really. They're just warm-up tournaments for players to prepare for slams.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by helloworld

1000 tournaments should not be in consideration when talking about GOAT, really. They're just warm-up tournaments for players to prepare for slams.

They are not AS important as Slams -that is true...but that is why they only get 1/2 the points that a Slam produces. However, they are still important wins on a Resume. Why do the top players work so hard to win them then? How does Nadal feel about Monte Carlo? If a player does well in the Slams but another plays incredibly well in the Masters 1000's then the latter player can still score the number 1 ranking. The players know that vital ranking points are on the line for these tournaments. Hence, the players wins at these tournament reflect concerted efforts in dominance. If Pete Sampras had won more Masters 1000's maybe there would be less gaps in his number 1 ranking periods during 1993 to 2000.

[90's Clay]

All depends on your perspective of importance for them. Sampras was still able to manage more Year #1's then anyone ever by peaking for the most important tournaments most of the time. He was a "slam guy".

I didn't like that from Sampras truth be told. He took the Masters events more seriously earlier in his career but he did what he had to do to be the best. I wish he would have took some of the lesser tournaments a little more seriously though.

[The Moonballer]

Doesn't matter about RG, leave that for the mindless retrievers like Nadull and his ugly muscle tennis. Of course it won't work as well on other surfaces.



Fatbutt Nadal = epitome of physical high percentage tennis, Sampras = talent and shot making

[smoledman]

^^^
That first pic is photoshop of some bodybuilder with Nadal's head on top. Or are you telling me Nadal has massive trapeziums?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by smoledman

^^^
That first pic is photoshop of some bodybuilder with Nadal's head on top. Or are you telling me Nadal has massive trapeziums?

He used to back when he was roiding out of his mind

[timnz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

All depends on your perspective of importance for them. Sampras was still able to manage more Year #1's then anyone ever by peaking for the most important tournaments most of the time. He was a "slam guy".

I didn't like that from Sampras truth be told. He took the Masters events more seriously earlier in his career but he did what he had to do to be the best. I wish he would have took some of the lesser tournaments a little more seriously though.

But Sampras should be given credit for not making the effort with Masters 1000's and players who did put the effort in like Lendl - their effort shouldn't be discounted. I have weighted the Masters 1000's appropriately in the rankings I produced.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by smoledman

^^^
That first pic is photoshop of some bodybuilder with Nadal's head on top. Or are you telling me Nadal has massive trapeziums?

It is him. There is enough pictures of him around to know that is him....

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by timnz

But Sampras should be given credit for not making the effort with Masters 1000's and players who did put the effort in like Lendl - their effort shouldn't be discounted. I have weighted the Masters 1000's appropriately in the rankings I produced.

Lendl is easily an all time great for sure.. If he had more success in slam finals, he would be a GOAT candidate