Pete Sampras year end number 1 for six years

[jorel]

This stat alone can always be used to argue that Sampras is one of the greatest ever…if not the greatest along with Federer

Even if 20 other people get 15 grand slams each in the future

For six years,,,he was the best player on the planet at the end of the year

Even the mighty Federer cant make that claim

[forzamilan90]

Good for him

[tennis_pro]

Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

[MLB_MOB]

While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak

[BrooklynNY]

OP - Of Course

[NadalDramaQueen]

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.

[mattennis]

Well, 6 Year-End Nº1 and 286 total weeks at nº1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nº1 and 302 total weeks at nº1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nº1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).

[Hood_Man]

It's an incredible stat and I agree that it puts him right up there with the best, he dominated a decade.

Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.

[Agassifan]

303/237/5 > 286/./6

[heninfan99]

I think the 6 year-end #1 stat is the record Sampras will be able to hold on to for a long time to come.

I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.

At the end of the day you can't really compare eras. Sampras was amazing in his though. His ground strokes were much better than people seem to remember.

Originally Posted by mattennis

Well, 6 Year-End Nº1 and 286 total weeks at nº1 one of them (Sampras) and 5 Year-End Nº1 and 302 total weeks at nº1 the other (Federer).

Both amazing stats.

Had it been a computer ranking system in the 50s and Pancho Gonzales would have been nº1 for 6 years easily (and Tilden maybe for 10 years easily in the 20s).

[ultradr]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by ultradr

Today's tour is pretty much one surface, all or nothing, homogeneous
environment. We pretty much always have at least 3 out of 4 top seeds at
semi final of all slams.

Today, #1 dominates the entire tour, all power baseline game. Either you #1 for
all year or your are #2. Other smaller factors are 1. 32 are seeded. 2. there
is no bonus point if lower ranker beats higher ranked players and so on.

All these promotes very few top players dominate the tour all year long
so that fans see familiar players on TV on weekends.

IMHO, the tennis of 70's - 90's were unique period in tennis history. We had
true varieties of players and conditions that brought out all aspect of tennis
in the way tennis meant to be played.

QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....

[axel89]

Originally Posted by mattennis

QFT

It was almost like three or four different sport in one sport and so many different players with their unique style and flare.

Today you watch basically the very same product (with very little variations) all the time.

It is now like a totally different thing altogether, a boring repetitive thing once and again.

And when Federer retires, I guess I'll only watch past eras DVD matches....

get over it everything evolves tennis man

[DropShotArtist]

Pete is a distant second to Federer now. Petetards need to remove the blinders and grow up.

[ultradr]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

Federer doesn't need to beat every record though.

In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.

IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by heninfan99

I read a Pat Cash blog about his take on the GOAT. He chose Pancho Gonzales. He makes a very convincing case too.

I usually place Laver as the GOAT but now I have to reassess as I learn more about Pancho Gonzales.

Pancho wasn't good enough on clay to be GOAT.

[paulorenzo]

Originally Posted by MLB_MOB

While its true that Federer can't say he was year end #1 for 6 years in a row. He was #1 consistently for 237 weeks, has more total weeks at #1, has more slams, and has more YECs.

Also lets not forget that Federer had the superior rival in Nadal. Not saying that Agassi is bad, but Nadal's idea of a good time isn't going hard on tweak

imagine what nadal would be like if it was his idea of a good time. those water bottles would be sooo organized.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by ultradr

In current environment, there will be more dominant player
and wins his 1st slam as a teenager, and accumulate ~20+ slams.

And Federer's reign was interrupted by ~5 year younger generation:
Nadal, Djokovic. This is weak as a all time greats. Top 5 GOATs dominated
a decade until 10+ younger generation arrived.

If 5 years of domination is weak for Fed as an all-time great then so is 6 years for Sampras as well, you do realize number 6 is closer to number 5 than number 10, Fastdunn? Not to mention that Fed was more dominant in his years at #1 than Sampras was by a solid margin, yes I know you can say that was due to homogenization of the surfaces/different seeding system in slams etc. but I can also say Fed didn't have 6 or more years at #1 because Nadal is a greater player and competitor than Agassi.

And yes it's possible there will a more dominant player than Fed in current conditions but until it actually happens, it's just speculation and thus silly to use as an argument.

Originally Posted by ultradr

IMHO, Federer knows this and is playing to show that he can stand again
at the top over Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

I am pretty sure that's the reason why Federer is playing now

Yeah, that would be the reason Fed is still playing, if he was a nutjob.

He's playing because he hopes to win a few more slams if he can (thus making his slam record tougher to break) and because he still enjoys it.

Thinking that he could stand at the top over Nadal, Novak and Murray at the age of 31-32 with them being in their mid 20s would make him delusional and somehow I never got that vibe from Fed's interviews.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: See some of the posts above and others that will be sure to follow.

Pete was a great player, one of the greatest, but it's time to let go of the GOAT title.

Wouldn't say that, the whole GOAT topic is very subjective, Sampras was great enough to always be in the conversation IMO.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless. His 1998 ranking/performances were comparable to Del Potro's in 2009 - and while Sampras finished the year 1st Del Potro was 5th LOL.

He was the flat out best player in 1993, 1994 and 1997. In 1995 Agassi was better but he injured himself at the end of the year and Sampras just barely continued his reign (the difference was like 100 ranking points despite Agassi missing the last 3 months of the season). In 1996 Sampras won only 1 major, lost in one quarter and one semi, won no Masters yet he still comfortably ended the year ranked 1st. It says how weak the tour was.

Federer lost like 20 matches in 2004-2007, his reign was an actual reign, not just being "barely" better than anyone else from his generation like Sampras did. Heck, guys like Moya, Rios, Muster, Rafter could take away the top spot from Sampras while Federer lost his top ranking in August 2008 to a GOATing Nadal.

I can say the same about this homogenized JOKE era which is a pusher's paradise and makes year round dominance 5 times easier then any era prior.

3 guys just in the last 5 years alone have managed 3 slams in one calendar year.. Prior to that, it was done twice in 40 plus years?

Guys today's dont even have to deal with fast surfaces be it indoors or outdoors (which would DESTROY any chance of consistency they have)