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

[Blocker]

*******s love to quote others about how good Federer is, but as soon as Sampras says something about Federer losing to his greatest rival, all up in arms. Way to stir the pot, this thread is 17 pages already and growing strong.

Refer to my “Why the GOAT does not exist” thread, it sums up the GOAT, or lack thereof perfectly. Unless Federer can address the deficit, history will always judge him as the man who was Nadal’s little *****. Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.

Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:

• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.

You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.

So if you think the above equates to a tennis hack which renders Sampras in no man's land, then you’re an idiot.

To you, losing to Nadal may not mean much, but I’m very sure it means a hell of a lot to Federer. It must eat at him to know that there is a guy out there who hands him his *** on a platter at the slams (let me reiterate, this will be acknowledged in all future tennis statistical and other books). This is something Federer has to live with. Talk all you like about beating the field, but at the end of the day, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME must also be able to beat any player in history at least 2 times out of 3 on 3 different surfaces. GREATEST remember, BETTER than anyone else. In that regard, the Federer v Nadal scoreline is a miserable one for Federer, not just miserable, but an epic fail, whether you choose to include the RG matches or not. Live with it, it’s the truth.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by smoledman

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

Federer's Records and Streaks

Can you list Laver's records?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TMF

Federer's Records and Streaks

Can you list Laver's records?

I'll try

A Grand Slam against Amateurs.
Another in a weak era against weak pros.

That's it.

[helloworld]

How can Federer be the greatest of all time if Nadal in this era alone is already beating him 8-2 in slams on 3 different surfaces, and Nadal is not even the greatest of all time? Imagine what would guys like Sampras,Laver, Borg, Pancho, etc. would do to Federer. In fact, Federer is not even the best of his own era, Nadal is.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I'll try

A Grand Slam against Amateurs.
Another in a weak era against weak pros.

That's it.

It was also 3 on grass and 1 on clay. But according to smoledman, Fed's zillions records only scratch the surface of Laver's achievement.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

How can Federer be the greatest of all time if Nadal in this era alone is already beating him 8-2 in slams on 3 different surfaces, and Nadal is not even the greatest of all time? Imagine what would guys like Sampras,Laver, Borg, Pancho, etc. would do to Federer. In fact, Federer is not even the best of his own era, Nadal is.

And don't forget Nadal has to win 34 slams to surpass Sampras.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by TMF

And don't forget Nadal has to win 34 slams to surpass Sampras.

For Nadal to dominate his era to an extent as Sampras did, Nadal has to compile twice more slam count than his nearest rival, Federer. I don't think he will ever achieve it, but he can try.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Blocker

*******s love to quote others about how good Federer is, but as soon as Sampras says something about Federer losing to his greatest rival, all up in arms. Way to stir the pot, this thread is 17 pages already and growing strong.

Refer to my “Why the GOAT does not exist” thread, it sums up the GOAT, or lack thereof perfectly. Unless Federer can address the deficit, history will always judge him as the man who was Nadal’s little *****. Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.

Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:

• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.

You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.


.

No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Blocker

blah .. blah.. blah...

Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:

• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.

You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.

So if you think the above equates to a tennis hack which renders Sampras in no man's land, then you’re an idiot.

blah blah blah ...

Petetards have comprehension problems, and this post sums it up perfectly. No one claimed Pete was a tennis hack; just that he has no argument over Federer. if you believe anyone in this thread claims or believes that Pete was a tennis hack (he was pretty poor on clay), then you're the idiot.

you see, you'll have to come up with made-up stats like "never lost a wimbledon final" or "owned his rivals in his prime" to keep him in the discussion. If pete owned his rivals in his prime, how is that he ended up with lesser slams than Federer in his prime (both their primes spanned the same length...)? and losing in the QF is more impressive than losing in the final? what sort of puke-worthy record is that?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by TMF

It was also 3 on grass and 1 on clay. But according to smoledman, Fed's zillions records only scratch the surface of Laver's achievement.

i think you may have misunderstood smoldeman (or i might have ) -- i understood that he meant that the records that you quoted for Federer are just a few of the many of the other records he owns..

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business/ Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed had never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.

*applause*
can't believe vernoquiem has come to the defense of Federer; in any case, huge props

[TMF]

Originally Posted by helloworld

For Nadal to dominate his era to an extent as Sampras did, Nadal has to compile twice more slam count than his nearest rival, Federer. I don't think he will ever achieve it, but he can try.

Rosewall won 23 majors(amateur slams+open era slams+pro majors) to Laver 19. According to your logic, Laver has to win 46 majors to surpass Sampras.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

i think you may have misunderstood smoldeman (or i might have ) -- i understood that he meant that the records that you quoted for Federer are just a few of the many of the other records he owns..

If I did I appologize.

But everyone should know by now that smoledman is LOLvile. He's pretending to support Roger just to avoid his identity.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

*applause*
can't believe vernoquiem has come to the defense of Federer; in any case, huge props

I have subjective preferences but I'm super honest about records. No way around facts, no cheating allowed. Otherwise, where would be the glory at achieving anything?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I have subjective preferences but I'm super honest about records. No way around facts, no cheating allowed. Otherwise, where would be the glory at achieving anything?

Comparing Fed to other players, you support him, but comparing him to Nadal, you knock him down. You don't have to explain, we already know why.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.

Will you marry me?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Comparing Fed to other players, you support him, but comparing him to Nadal, you knock him down. You don't have to explain, we already know why.

I don't support Fed in anything. I just can't let someone say that 14 slams > 17, 11 masters > 21 and 5 WTF > 6 WTF, etc, etc. If I let that happen, nothing makes sense anymore and the world becomes chaos...

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Will you marry me?

I'm already married but thanks anyway

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.

It would still leave him in front of Sampras.

Originally Posted by Blocker

You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.

You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Talk all you like about beating the field, but at the end of the day, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME must also be able to beat any player in history at least 2 times out of 3 on 3 different surfaces. Live with it, it’s the truth.

If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Povl Carstensen

It would still leave him in front of Sampras.You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.
If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.

But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.