Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by pc1

I have a question for you. You are throwing out some stats but what about the players that may have better stats than Federer like Bill Tilden for example. Below is the info on Tilden and Federer taken from a thread I started a few months ago. The information on Federer is should be correct since I edited it a few minutes ago.


Edit-Corrected the information on Federer. It should be up to date as of December 3, 2012.

So all of you. Please discuss. Do you go by simple accomplishments and stats or do you decide otherwise? I believe Tilden would have done extremely well today. He was a gifted athlete and perhaps even more than that he was a great tennis analyst and studied the game, always trying to improve.

I have viewed footage of tilden, but i dont find him particularly athletic or nimble, flexible compared to the athletes of today.

He seems a bit gangly and not as fast as say for example borg or laver on the court, or as agile/fluid as federer.

But that is besides the point.

Comparig either fed/samp to tilden is very difficult because the structure of global tennis landscape has changed significantly over many generations between these players. Also the technology, and the surfaces are different.

Comparin federer to sampras, however is not as difficult because you are really only talking about at most one generation in between the two players, if you can call it that.

Much of the criteria used to compare federer to sampras is quite valid given the fact that the structure of the ATP and ITF hasnt changed too much.

Therefore using numbers to compare leaves less room for interpretation because the variables havent changed as much between federer to sampras...as say federer/sampras to tilden.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by World Beater

I have viewed footage of tilden, but i dont find him particularly athletic or nimble, flexible compared to the athletes of today.

He seems a bit gangly and not as fast as say for example borg or laver on the court, or as agile/fluid as federer.

But that is besides the point.

Comparig either fed/samp to tilden is very difficult because the structure of global tennis landscape has changed significantly over many generations between these players. Also the technology, and the surfaces are different.

Comparin federer to sampras, however is not as difficult because you are really only talking about at most one generation in between the two players, if you can call it that.

Much of the criteria used to compare federer to sampras is quite valid given the fact that the structure of the ATP and ITF hasnt changed too much.

Therefore using numbers to compare leaves less room for interpretation because the variables havent changed as much between federer to sampras...as say federer/sampras to tilden.

Good point however it's always hard to say with some of that old footage. I see some old footage of Laver sometimes and in the old black and white he frankly doesn't look that good. He looks as though he had no power at all. But you check out the youtube footage and Laver is the Laver I saw live and in person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

Babe Ruth is still considered by many to be the best baseball player ever. He played in the 1920's but his stats were so overwhelming it staggers the imagination to sort of quote Charlie Brown.

I see footage of Pancho Gonzalez for example and I see a gifted athlete and a great player and yet Tilden in the 1950's won a few games from Gonzalez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY

[mattennis]

Different eras, impossible to say one thing or the other.

Is Sampras "better" than McEnroe?

This question has no answer, because they are not from the same era.

Is Federer "better" than McEnroe?

Exactly the same. That question has no answer.

You can not know if the greatest (or one of the greatest) player from one era is "better" than the greatest player (or one of them) of another different era.

And for me, even 7 or 8 years of age apart means DIFFERENT ERAS.


Yesterday I was watching McEnroe vs Vilas on green clay, wood racquets. It was so beautiful.

How can ANYBODY know what Sampras, or Agassi, or Federer, or Nadal....would have achieved in that era?

It is impossible to know.

All this GOAT thing is only for ******** people that probably even don't like tennis at all to begin with.

[President]

I don't see how Sampras can be considered GOAT at this point when Federer is above him in basically every important aspect. At this point Borg and Nadal are probably more likely to be GOAT than him, Federer is just like Sampras 2.0 whereas they have some unique aspects where they are superior to Federer (even if overall I believe they are inferior players).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by mattennis

Different eras, impossible to say one thing or the other.

Is Sampras "better" than McEnroe?

This question has no answer, because they are not from the same era.

Is Federer "better" than McEnroe?

Exactly the same. That question has no answer.

You can not know if the greatest (or one of the greatest) player from one era is "better" than the greatest player (or one of them) of another different era.

And for me, even 7 or 8 years of age apart means DIFFERENT ERAS.


Yesterday I was watching McEnroe vs Vilas on green clay, wood racquets. It was so beautiful.

How can ANYBODY know what Sampras, or Agassi, or Federer, or Nadal....would have achieved in that era?

It is impossible to know.

All this GOAT thing is only for ******** people that probably even don't like tennis at all to begin with.

it's sports, the defining elements of sports is competition, trying to be the best, GOAT is an absolutely obvious part of sports talk, nay I say mandatory

[kiki]

The questioning mark on past greats is something that is not only common to tennis.Other sports fans have embraced that.

Lauda,Fittipaldi,Prost and Senna were as good as Vettel,Schumacher or Alonso, and maybe better, yet nobody remembers them

Merckxy, Anquetil,Hinault would be just as great if not better than Armstrong or Corredor, yet press seems to have forgotten them

What about Marciano,Alí,Leonard,Robinson,Dempsey?.if they were still around, boxing would be as great as it was many decades ago.

Russell,Jabbar,Chamberlain had much more class than any center in today´s NBA league,a nd probably than any forward, as well, but seems like that position, because there is no dominant center anymore is not important...and Lebron,Durrant and Bryant get over credit.

Phelps and Bolt are exceptional athletes, but it was just as hard for Lewis,Owens,Spitz and Gross to achieve what they achieved with much less than a fifth of the technological and scientific advancements.

Messi is an all time great and plays at a faster pace than any other all timer but...Di
Stefano,Mazzola,Pelé,Cruyff,Maradona,Beckenbauer or Platini were just as bit of good as him , Ronaldo or Zidane.

and we could continue forever...

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by pc1

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay.

No, he wasn't. stop making **** up.

[timnz]

Your question: Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

Answer: Yes

Why?: Pluses - second highest number of Slams won in Open Era - 14
- second highest number of year end championships - 5
- Highest (Equal) number of Wimbledons won - 7
- Highest (Equal) number of US Opens won in Open era - 5
- 6 year end number 1 ranking positions
- second longest time in ATP history as number (in weeks)

Minuses - No French Open win
- Relatively low number of Masters 1000's won (11 - there are at least 11 guys in the Open era who have won more)

The Minuses are really not big minuses (given those most GOAT candidates have some hole in their CV) - so Yes he is in the GOAT list.

[sureshs]

No Olympics medals

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by sonicare

No, he wasn't. stop making **** up.

He was YE#1 six years in a row, 1993-1998 IIRC.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by pc1

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay.

Originally Posted by sonicare

No, he wasn't. stop making **** up.

Check the facts. You can see what I wrote is fact. And incidentally I meant six end of year rankings in a row.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...e-Sampras.aspx

http://www.petesampras.com/sampras2.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...r-break/page/2

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by pc1

Check the facts. You can see what I wrote is fact. And incidentally I meant six end of year rankings in a row.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...e-Sampras.aspx

http://www.petesampras.com/sampras2.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...r-break/page/2

Six year ends in a row is VASTLY different than 6 years in a row. 6 years in a row would put him at minimum 312 weeks at No.1 and we both know that is not true. Next time, watch what you say because I call people out on their BS.

[President]

Originally Posted by sonicare

Six year ends in a row is VASTLY different than 6 years in a row. 6 years in a row would put him at minimum 312 weeks at No.1 and we both know that is not true. Next time, watch what you say because I call people out on their BS.

I actually agree with you though. Sampras' 6 YE #1 are vastly overrated. At times he would just play a lot of tournaments towards the end of the year in order to ensure his ranking, Federer's 237 (or whatever it is) consecutive weeks at number one are a lot more impressive.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by President

I actually agree with you though. Sampras' 6 YE #1 are vastly overrated. At times he would just play a lot of tournaments towards the end of the year in order to ensure his ranking, Federer's 237 (or whatever it is) consecutive weeks at number one are a lot more impressive.

Hah.. That image cracks me up.

I am not bothered about what is more impressive.

I just want people to speak accurately. Sampras never was ranked no.1 six years in a row. he ended 6 years as no.1.

And no, it is not semantics. djokovic was not ranked no.1 in 2012. he ended the year as ranked no.1 and he and federer split the ranking throughout the year. So federer was ranked X weeks as no.1 in 2012, djokovic as Y weeks with djokovic ending the year as NO.1. this is especially important in tennis because each week is counted towards the players total weeks ranked no.1

Now that I have schooled you kids, just keep it in mind next time you profess your Ramptard nostalgic nonsense.

[killerboi2]

Denying Sampras a goat contender position is laughable to be honest.

[RF20Lennon]

Ok that is preposterous Sampras in one of the GOAT's

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

FO is optional for goat contention. Nice to have, not compulsory.

Dumb post if there ever was one. RG means so little that your hero bawled when he finally won it, and fell down and rolled around in the dirt he was so happy. Sure seems meaningless to Fed doesn't it?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by sureshs

No Olympics medals

That was a minor event in Pete's time. (Even now it is only 750 points for the winner).

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by timnz

Your question: Should Sampras really be placed amongst the GOATs?

Answer: Yes

Why?: Pluses - second highest number of Slams won in Open Era - 14
- second highest number of year end championships - 5
- Highest (Equal) number of Wimbledons won - 7
- Highest (Equal) number of US Opens won in Open era - 5

Minuses - No French Open win
- Relatively low number of Masters 1000's won (11 - there are at least 11 guys in the Open era who have won more)

The Minuses are really not big minuses (given those most GOAT candidates have some hole in their CV) - so Yes he is in the GOAT list.

Sampras is definitely one of the greats of the game.

However, his achievements in totality are not as unique as borg, laver, federer, or even nadal when comparing them to other players in the so-called short-list for GOAT - that is the argument for Numero Uno of ALL TIME.
--> Not just an all-time great...

Sampras has amassed many "longevity" based numbers largely on faster courts - major count, weeks at #1 etc. But he has been bettered by federer in many of these areas.

The answer to the GOAT question lies in the defined Criteria. Depending on the criteria used, you could end up with

Laver, as goat - based on his cygs
borg, his channel slams
nadal, his claim as the best on clay holding many records by himself
federer, holding many longevity / dominance based records - #1, # of slams etc.
Sampras-? You would have to twist the criteria in such a calculated way to eliminate federer from the conversation, as almost every criteria that would be beneficial to sampras would allow Federer to stand out more than Sampras.

Of course, I am not even talking about pre-open era greats, who also possess unique and outstanding achievements.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by World Beater

Sampras is definitely one of the greats of the game.

However, his achievements in totality are not as unique as borg, laver, federer, or even nadal when comparing them to other players in the so-called short-list for GOAT - that is the argument for Numero Uno of ALL TIME.
--> Not just an all-time great...

Sampras has amassed many "longevity" based numbers largely on faster courts - major count, weeks at #1 etc. But he has been bettered by federer in many of these areas.

The answer to the GOAT question lies in the defined Criteria. Depending on the criteria used, you could end up with

Laver, as goat - based on his cygs
borg, his channel slams
nadal, his claim as the best on clay holding many records by himself
federer, holding many longevity / dominance based records - #1, # of slams etc.
Sampras-? You would have to twist the criteria in such a calculated way to eliminate federer from the conversation, as almost every criteria that would be beneficial to sampras would allow Federer to stand out more than Sampras.

Of course, I am not even talking about pre-open era greats, who also possess unique and outstanding achievements.

Thats why its so difficult to compare across eras. Laver got the 2 Calendars at a time with 3 slams played on grass and one on clay (Heck if Sampras got that, it may have been possible he would have grabbed at least one calendar himself). Nadal's accomplishments have came in the SLOW COURT era. If things were more polarized, his numbers aren't nearly as good.

I dont put Borg as a GOAT candidate because he retired so early and never won a hard court slam. ( which consisted of half the year at the time). Sampras still managed 3 of the 4. Borg only 2 of the 4. He had a high winning percentage but thats easier to do when you retire at 25/26. Before you're physical decline

Sampras also managed to win slams 12 years apart.. Which is pretty crazy.

Then factor in:

2nd most slams of the open era
Won 3 of the 4 slams more then once
Most year end #1s
5 year end championships
Arguably the GOAT on one surface (Borg was surpassed by Nadal in the French Open count)
Overrall dominated his main rivals (McEnroe got the best of Borg quite a bit.. Something Sampras didn't let Andre do)

Thats GOAT material. Not hands down GOAT material of course.. Still GOAT material