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

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

He will then start lauding aboud Djokovic owning Rafa.....7 matches in a row.

Pete will not say that. He only cares about the majors and Nadal is 6-3 vs Nole.

[helloworld]

LOL, you guys are comparing a player from the previous era to the current active players. There is simply no way to compare. Anyway, have fun discussing something that are totally based on opinions and Happy New Year!

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

talk about agenda.... why do you feel the need to remind everyone that Federer hasn't won the Grand Slam in every thread about Federer? Insecure much? If the Grand Slam is the holy grail of tennis achievements, surely you don't have to bring it up pretty much in every GOAT debate (using your own logic...)

btw, show me where in the OP I sang praises of how "great" my false "god" is?

Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.

We're discussing whether Sampras is right in his supposed claims or not,

No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".

I don't see anyone proclaiming Federer as GOAT here; you felt slighted that your true "god" Laver was shortchanged because... Sampras felt he was GOAT, and others here felt he wasn't???

Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.



No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".



Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.

Which Laver? The little guy who beat up on amateurs to win most of his Slams? That Laver?

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by pringles

You can take away Federer's 2009 FO away from him but a gazillion finals is still better than a handful of humiliating 1st round losses that Sampras suffered to complete journeymen at the FO.

No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Which Laver? The little guy who beat up on amateurs to win most of his Slams? That Laver?

^ the statement revealing how much you do not know about tennis.

Saved for future use.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.

yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.

Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer has a career Grand Slam.

Irrelevant--as it is easy to collect any of the four over the span of years. He was incapable of concentrated dominance over the field at majors during a season (calendar year), like Laver.

I mean, Sampras is a definite notch below Federer.

To modify your words, without the Grand Slam, Federer is a definite drop below Laver.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.

If it was invented, then it exists. Davis Cup didn't exist before that Davis guy invented it but now it does. Same goes for golden career slam. Couldn't care less for whom it was invented. It was and now it exists and Nadal has it, Agassi has it, Sampras doesn't.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by mandy01

yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.

Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

If it was invented, then it exists. Davis Cup didn't exist before that Davis guy invented it but now it does. Same goes for golden career slam. Couldn't care less for whom it was invented. It was and now it exists and Nadal has it, Agassi has it, Sampras doesn't.

It was invented by the Agassi-loving media (no complaints there, I like Andre). But I rarely see the term being used now, leaving aside Nadal's most ardent followers of course. So yeah, even the media thinks its passe

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.

It's okay, even Nadal got his fair share of luck at USO particularly considering the fact that previously, his best result there was one SF in all these years.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there

Incorrect, that would mean that they awarded the FO trophy to Fed the minute Nadal lost which obviously didn't happen.

Regarding calling his FO win "fluke", incorrect again, we're talking about a player with 5 FO finals to his name here.

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.

Eh, sure he did, he won 7 BO5 matches and thus won the title in the end.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by mandy01

It was invented by the Agassi-loving media (no complaints there, I like Andre). But I rarely see the term being used now, leaving aside Nadal's most ardent followers of course. So yeah, even the media thinks its passe

I haven't studied the frequency of its use (lol) but I have seen it. In any case the big deal is not the "golden" part, the big deal is the career slam which Sampras doesn't have, not even a final at RG.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Irrelevant--as it is easy to collect any of the four over the span of years. He was incapable of concentrated dominance over the field at majors during a season (calendar year), like Laver.

To modify your words, without the Grand Slam, Federer is a definite drop below Laver.

But it's certainly not easy to win 17 slams, holds 302 weeks at #1, 23 straight semifinals, or reaching 24 slam finals. Those are just a few records that lifted him above everyone else, including Laver.

And Laver have conceded Federer is the greatest, that speaks volume.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by TMF

But it's certainly not easy to win 17 slams, holds 302 weeks at #1, 23 straight semifinals, or reaching 24 slam finals. Those are just a few records that lifted him above everyone else, including Laver.

And Laver have conceded Federer is the greatest, that speaks volume.

Those records just scratch the surface of his what he's achieved.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.

What was the problem for poor Rafa to reach the final that year?

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.

Nadal played the French Open in 2009. You sound confused.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.



No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".



Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.

For someone who has a problem with me starting a thread based on what Sampras "supposedly" said, you sure make a sh!t load of assumptions based on my motives and agenda... all based on my username.

Still not sure why you feel the need to assert that Laver is the "true" GOAT based on the 2 CYGS he won. I ask you again... why do you feel the need to bash Federer and remind everyone that Laver is the GOAT since he won the CYGS, when (a) the thread is not a discussion on who the GOAT is and has nothing to do with Laver, and (b) you should be directing your anger at Pete, because if the quotes attributed to him are true, then he sure does not think highly of Laver, thus violating his sanctity, and desecrating your place of worship in the process.