Apparently, Sampras still thinks he's the GOAT!!!

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by smoledman

Clay is arguably the 2nd most important surface in tennis.

Hard court GOAT - Fed, but not undisputed
Clay GOAT - Nadal undisputed
Grass GOAT - Fed/Sampras

Hmmm...Grass below clay?

Before the Fedal era, and especially during the Sampras/Agassi era, clay was an afterthought. It was Nadal's ability to break out of the clay court specialist mold, and Federer's ability to succeed on clay that has raised clay's profile, at least since the 90s (when I started following tennis).

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

Champions always secretly believe they are the best, you have to, it's part of the mental makeup.

Sampras in his prime said he believed he was "Unbeatable", this is necessary to be great. Without believieng that you may as well throw in the towel before the match.

but then there is this the inconvenient factor of reality... Sampras was not even remotely unbeatable as Federer or Djokovic in their primes. may be at Wimbledon, but even then we saw what happened in 1996.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by BrooklynNY

Both Sampras and Nadal each have 7 slams at their best slam.

Pete has 7 others, Nadal has 4. Nadal isn't done yet.

But really, this is comparing apples with oranges.

But Sampras isn't the king of his pet slam. Nadal is the king of RolandGarros, with 7 slams, and NO ONE else has 7 slams at RolandGarros. Whereas Wimbledon has two tied slam kings, Pete Sampras and roger federer. In fact, Nadal is the ONLY slam king in open era history.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

But Sampras isn't the king of his pet slam. Nadal is the king of RolandGarros, with 7 slams, and NO ONE else has 7 slams at RolandGarros. Whereas Wimbledon has two tied slam kings, Pete Sampras and roger federer. In fact, Nadal is the ONLY slam king in open era history.

Pete was the king of Wimbledon until Roger tied him a few months ago.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by BrooklynNY

Both Sampras and Nadal each have 7 slams at their best slam.

Pete has 7 others, Nadal has 4. Nadal isn't done yet.

But really, this is comparing apples with oranges.

Federer and Sampras each have 7 slams at their best slam.

Pete has 7 others, Federer has 10. Federer isn't done yet.

This is actually comparing apples and apples, and apparently, the apple from the 90s is superior!!

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by Vrad

Hmmm...Grass below clay?

Before the Fedal era, and especially during the Sampras/Agassi era, clay was an afterthought. It was Nadal's ability to break out of the clay court specialist mold, and Federer's ability to succeed on clay that has raised clay's profile, at least since the 90s (when I started following tennis).

It has to do with how many tournaments are on the surfaces.

Hard - 50%
Clay - 40%
Grass - 10%

It's easier to dominate grass because it's a super specialist surface. Hardest to dominate hardcourts due to the near ubiquity of the events on tour, so Federer's achievements there are almost equivalent to me.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Vrad

Good point. Nadal does indeed have a huge disadvantage in the lack of #1 weeks. Considering that, I would say Nadal needs to reach 15GS with at least 1 non RG slam and rack up a few more #1 weeks to be considered greater than Sampras IMO.

Only if # of weeks at # 1 is your supreme criterium. It doesn't have to be. 21 masters to 11 is a huge difference. And all 4 slams is priceless too. If you do it by surface, then of course Sampras is head and shoulders above Nadal on grass and hard but as I said before, Nadal is THE #1 on clay (all time). Sampras is not the #1 anywhere: hard, grass or overall. That should count for something too. And he's WAY worse on clay than Rafa is on either hard or grass.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Other than his domination of Agassi, there is really no credible argument supporting the thesis of "goat Sampras" at this point. Poor Sampras doesn't even have most WTF titles anymore nor # of weeks at #1. His # of master titles is also way below other top players in open era.

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point out is "greatest of their era"

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point is "greatest of their era"

Amen. It would be easy enough to make an argument for Fed being best of open era but all time offers all kinds of difficulties because the tour (and the sport itself) has changed so much. Even comparisons within open era have a measure of awkwardness. The AO's status for instance has changed drastically over time. Carpet was a major surface in the past and has completely disappeared. Etc, etc.. Comparisons are never more than approximations in any case.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

There is no credible argument supporting ANY HANDS DOWN GOAT. Too difficult to compare eras. The only thing we can universally factually point out is "greatest of their era"

I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love Roger, but I don't like saying GOAT, since you can only speculate what would have happen, and create hypothetical scenarios. I am very happy to say Federer is the Greatest of his era, and Nadal the greatest Clay courter of his era, since that is proven fact. But comparing generations, surfaces, training, depth of competition, technology is not that simple.

Sampras was the greatest of his era. Federer the greatest of his. Nadal greatest clay courter of his era. Borg the greatest of his era.

[90's Clay]

I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Hitman

I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love Roger, but I don't like saying GOAT, since you can only speculate what would have happen, and create hypothetical scenarios. I am very happy to say Federer is the Greatest of his era, and Nadal the greatest Clay courter of his era, since that is proven fact. But comparing generations, surfaces, training, depth of competition, technology is not that simple.

Sampras was the greatest of his era. Federer the greatest of his. Nadal greatest clay courter of his era. Borg the greatest of his era.

But Sampras and Fed are close enough in time that it's not that difficult to compare their achievements and observe that Fed has surpassed Sampras on any surface and in any department.

[90's Clay]

Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.

Its a totally different game now

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion

um, no.. Sampras does not belong in the conversation anymore.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.

Its a totally different game now

What huge changes have taken place since the 90s?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

um, no.. Sampras does not belong in the conversation anymore.

14 slams
Record Year #1
Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
5 USO titles (most finals appearances)
2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
Stopped and dominated his main rivals
Davis Cup
2 AO's


He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.

Its a totally different game now

yet, you have no problem comparing Roddick, Hewitt etc. to Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, and make claims about 2000s being the weakest era of all?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

What huge changes have taken place since the 90s?

Racket technology, carpet is gone, fast courts in general are gone, variety is gone, surface specialists are gone

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

But Sampras and Fed are close enough in time that it's not that difficult to compare their achievements and observe that Fed has surpassed Sampras on any surface and in any department.

I prefer still not to compare them. I am sure you are aware at how polarized the surfaces were in the 90s, there were very distinct characteristics shown between the slams, that are not around in todays game. Again, I am not saying Federer wouldn't have had the exact same success, he is very adaptable, and I am not even saying that Nadal wouldn't have the same success, but even between their time and Pete's time, things have radically changed.

I will say this, Federer and Nadal to a slightly lesser extent have done remarkably well, and have incredible champion's mentality, but so did Sampras. But Fedal have played in conditions that are different from what Sampras did.

Now, you can say that it makes things easier for Federer and Nadal, since there is less surface change, the balls are similiar etc. But you can also say that it also makes things harder, since other players who would have struggled more in 90s with changing surfaces, now are able to compete on more and more events and slams, thus making it even more difficult for Fedal to win. It goes both ways, and again, I am not fighting a case either way.

I am just saying, Sampras did play in a time when conditions were drastically different, to what Federer and Nadal have, so you already have to look at surfaces as a discussion point. And if arguments are being made, yeah....you can still say who you think is GOAT, but there will be question marks always. Speculations and hyptheticals will always come up. I am happy with what Roger, Rafa and Pete have done in their careers, but I don't need to be giving GOAT titles around to underline they were the best. In the times they played, they simply were the best.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

14 slams
Record Year #1
Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
Stopped his main rivals
Davis Cup
2 AO's


He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him

Sampras is probably the best player currently who doesn't have a case for being the GOAT. Federer took it away from him by matching him on grass/hard courts (even surpassing him on hard courts) and being 3 leagues above him on clay. Sampras doesn't have any "special achievements" to put him in the coversation unlike:
- Borg who did the channel Slam 3 times on completely different surfaces
- Nadal who completely dominated a surface, won all 4 majors and has a positive h2h against virtually everybody
- Laver with 2 calender slams
- Federer who almost completely dominated half a decade, I could write a whole chapter about Federer's "special" achievements but let's name a couple: winning Wimbledon/US 5 times in a row each, 23 major SF in a row, 17 majors