Pete Sampras year end number 1 for six years

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by zagor

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

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Originally Posted by zagor

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

That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.

[heninfan99]

Tsonga comes to net a lot. Don't you enjoy his game?

Originally Posted by mattennis

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

[helloworld]

It would have been 7 straight years if Pete didn't skip the 1999 US Open. Scary...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by helloworld

It would have been 7 straight years if Pete didn't skip the 1999 US Open. Scary...

it would've been only 5 straight years if Becker in 1998 didn't agree to drop out of a mickey mouse tournament to let Pete in (and Rios would've ended #1).. shameful..

[Blocker]

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.

But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

We'll have to agree to disagree, Zagor. Of course it is subjective, but I feel like the separation is enough right now that by any attempt to use objective criteria, you will come out with Fed ahead of Sampras.

Yes but these things are not always decided by a set of objective criteria, remember people were already claiming (rightly or wrongly) Fed is the greatest ever back in 2006 because they were so impressed by his level of play from 2004-2006 period.

Heck, look at Laver's list for example:

From the past
10. John Newcombe (AUS)
9. Jack Crawford (AUS)
8. Bobby Riggs (USA)
7. Ellsworth Vines (USA)
6. Ken Rosewall (AUS)
5. Fred Perry (GBR)
4. Don Budge (USA)
3. Pancho Gonzalez (USA)
2. Jack Kramer (USA)
1. Lew Hoad (AUS)

From the Open era
10. Stefan Edberg (SWE)
9. Ivan Lendl (USA)
8. Jimmy Connors (USA)
7. Andre Agassi (USA)
6. Novak Djokovic (SER)
5. Rafael Nadal (ESP)
4. John McEnroe (USA)
3. Pete Sampras (USA)
2. Bjorn Borg (SWE)
1. Roger Federer (SUI)

He put Hoad at #1 solely for his peak play and also put McEnroe ahead of Nadal and Borg ahead of Sampras even though stats would dictate otherwise.

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

The other alternative is to be too inclusive which leads to long lists of potential goats, which is honestly the most fair, but also the least interesting, as it doesn't leave much room for discussion or flared tempers.

Well IMO a GOAT list that doesn't include Sampras is not inclusive enough.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

That I agree with also. There are many GOAT arguments for Sampras. Pete's highest level on a fast surface as astounding. The greats he played in majors are legendary. He played Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Goran, Rafter, Henman, Safin, Lendl among others. That's pretty awesome.

Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by pc1

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Subjectively you don't see the tremendous level of difference between Federer and Sampras on clay?

I find a lot of difference.

[jorel]

Originally Posted by Feather

Subjectively you don't see the tremendous level of difference between Federer and Sampras on clay?

I find a lot of difference.

forget subjective

objectively theres a difference..

french open champion

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

Subjectively I don't think there's much between Sampras and Federer but you're right, objectively Federer is ahead in tournaments won, lifetime winning percentage, percentage of tournaments won, majors won and percentage of majors won. If you go by objective criteria Federer is clearly ahead of Sampras.

Subjectively, some people think there is a lot between Federer and Sampras, but in my opinion, this second opinion is as useless as yours.

I don't know how anyone can construct anything (arguments included) based off of unfalsifiable opinions.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

it would've been only 5 straight years if Becker in 1998 didn't agree to drop out of a mickey mouse tournament to let Pete in (and Rios would've ended #1).. shameful..

It could have been 4 had Agassi showed up and play after the 1995 US Open. Agassi was simply non-existent after the US Open, who was in the driver seat to claim the #1.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Subjectively, some people think there is a lot between Federer and Sampras, but in my opinion, this second opinion is as useless as yours.

I don't know how anyone can construct anything (arguments included) based off of unfalsifiable opinions.

If you say so. Incidentally I was supporting you on this topic.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Blocker

But he still beat the field whereas Del Potro didn't. I mean, isn't that the argument everytime someone mention's Federer's kryptonite, beating the field?

Pete lost 17/18 times that year and slamless Rios was threaten him, woo hoo !

Del Potro had to deal with 2 slam winners Federer, and Nadal/Nole/Murray. Sampras is lucky not to have anyone challenge him.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

If you say so. Incidentally I was supporting you on this topic.

I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see examples of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.

[Dedans Penthouse]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Sampras' such long reign is completely worthless..

Completely worthless. Got it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I don't mean it as an insult. I only mean that there are many people who will go to their grave thinking a certain player had the highest peak ever. You can see example of that on this board as well as in the media about a great deal of players.

There really isn't a complicated reason as to why this happens so often, it is just a part of human nature. I'm sorry if that came across as an insult, but I was really speaking to my general viewpoint that opinions like these don't really carry much value. I hope you understand.

I understand. Thanks for explaining.

Like I've said before I always hope that the current champion can be the best ever because that would mean we are seeing the highest quality of play. Unfortunately it's often not the case.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Feather

Subjectively you don't see the tremendous level of difference between Federer and Sampras on clay?

I find a lot of difference.

On clay yes there is a great gap.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by zagor

Chang and Goran are not tennis greats (as much as I like Goran), I also don't know what in the world is Henman doing there as a proof of tough competition.

Lendl was also at the tail end of his career when Sampras played him, it's akin to Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great.

Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.

Anyway while Chang and Goran weren't all time greats and while Lendl wasn't what he was I was just using them as examples of some of the tough competition Sampras faced.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well while Chang and Goran may not be all time greats they were players to be feared, especially Goran at Wimbledon. Can any player in history say they wouldn't be afraid of Goran at Wimbledon? Goran may lose but the serve is scary and he had more than just a serve. They were excellent players and able to beat anyone except perhaps if Chang played on grass. I like Goran also and I just wish I could call him an all time great..

Chang wasn't feared by the best if they were in decent form and no he certainly wasn't capable of beating anyone at their best, he was a lesser version of Hewitt who wouldn't sniff #1 if he was the same generation as Fed (Roger doesn't go on walkabout when CC season arrives), the guy's vastly overrated in comparison to players like Roddick and Hewitt (courtesy of being a player in Sampras era instead of Fed's, I'm sure he'd be called another weak era clown if he were Fed's punching bag instead of Pete's).

Goran was a dangerous opponent and a terrific grasscourter at his best but was also a huge headcase who could implode at any given moment.

Originally Posted by pc1

Lendl was at the decline phase of his career in 1990 but he was 54-12 for the year winning five tournaments. It still was an excellent win for Sampras at the US Open.

Winning % and number of titles matter little when it comes to slam performances, as I said for me it was the same as Fed's win over Sampras at Wimbledon, a solid win but nothing special.