Have we forgotten how good Sampras was?

[dukemunson]

Originally Posted by Chadwixx

Ya pete was great, i capped the 2001 us open final with him vs safin last night.

Watch the last game of that match and it will dispell pete the gun slinger myth. He has has break point yet dinks it back over the net giving safin and easy shot. Much like in the fed vs sampras match, when the pressure was on, pete didnt come up with the goods.

Just watch the youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XSje6Aptac

Feds volley is equal if not better than petes. He just realizes (unlike the 100 pete fans at the tw forums) that the serve and volley doesnt work against the guys today.

That is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read on the TW message board (and lets be honest there are some ridiculous ones). You are basing Pete Sampras's nerves based on one shot in one match? Are you serious? Didnt Jordan miss a game winner or two in his career? Didn't Gretzky miss a relatively open slap shot from time to time? Didn't Pele ever mess up a header? While I believe Federer is playing at the highest level ever played right now it's only fractionally better then Sampras. Sampras may not have dominated quite the same way Fed is right now but he was pretty damn close (we're tossing out any extra arguments of talent level for this argument). Ultimetely I'll take Federer's game right now over anyone of all time but if it came down to who you wanted to serve out a set or match on a grandslam court (French excluded) give me Sampras anyday...

[alfa164164]

In Pete's 3 most dominant years, he still had like 44 loses.
I think Fed has like 15 losses for the last 3 years. That's ALOT more loses.
Federer also has more wins over that same timeframe.
Now, let's wait for the "Pete's competition was better" arguements.
Any moment.............(But that's 29 MORE losses over their most dominant extended period with fewer wins.)

[drakulie]

Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.

[ACE of Hearts]

When i used to watch Sampras, i was amazed by his game.I thought he was like the best player i have seen until i saw Fed.I am surprised that we saw this dominance come so early after Sampras left the game.I guess i know why Pete has some resement, people indeed might have forgotten about him.

[federerfanatic]

Roddicks, Blakes, and Nalbandians of the world dont exactly measure up to the Beckers, Ivanisevics, Rafters of the past.

Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.

Sampras's forehand better then Federer's, ROTFL!!! Please. The only forehand Sampras hit a bit better is the running forehand, Federer has a way better forehand down the line, prone crosscourt forehand, inside out forehand, down the middle forehand, off forehand, wide forehand, short angled forehand. Federer's forehand is the best shot all time period.

Federer is better then Sampras, that is why he is a few years away from taking or sharing every record Sampras ever had. Get over it. Federer>Sampras.

The reason Federer wins so much more is he doesnt let his competition get that great, he just chooses to win everything instead. He doesnt let Yzaga or korda beat him at the U.S open like Sampras did, he doesnt let Safin or Hewitt embarass him in the finals like Sampras did. He doesnt let nothing-but-a-serve Krajicek or a 19-year old unmatured newbie like who? Oh yeah Fed himself, beat him at Wimbledon when Fed was only the #15 seed and 10% the player he was today and Pete was the #1 seed. If Pete couldnt even beat that Federer imagine what the Federer of today would do to him, ouch. He doesnt let unseeded players like Kucera or Phillipousis knock him out of the Aussie Open, nor does he skip an Aussie Open because he needs a break. He just instead chooses to win and win, instead of letting ungreat players knock him out of slams. Dont give me this crap about Agassi and Becker, it took ungreat players to knock Pete out of slams often.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by drakulie

Sampras was an awesome player and one of the Greats. I don't think I have seen anybody deny that, so I'm unsure as to why you feel he gets no respect.

Just because many people feel Fed is Better, does not mean they have fogotten how great Sampras was.

Exactly. Praise for Federer need not be seen as automatic denigration of Sampras.

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

Ivanisevic isnt better then Roddick you idiot. Ivanisevic is mostly just a great serve just like Roddick but Roddick gets 70% of his serves in and his second serve is much more reliable, and his ground game while not great is way better then Ivanisevic's. If Roddick and Ivanisevic just played groundstroke points with no serves Roddick would crush Ivanisevic.

Rafter is nothing special, a late blooming 2nd rate serve-volleyer who won his first U.S Open over Rusedski, then won his second over an injured Sampras and Phillipousis and spent most of his career not even a top player. He cant lick the gum of the shoes of real consistent top players like Roddick and Hewitt and Nadal.

You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.


Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.


It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

[Chadwixx]

Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.

[shakes1975]

this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

[Swissv2]

Originally Posted by shakes1975

this whole thread is absurd. stating that fed is a better player than sampras doesn't mean sampras is not good. it just means that: fed is a better player than sampras.

this is an ongoing scenario, something every generation sees. when sampras got similar appreciation in the mid-90's, there were people complaining about how everyone forgot about laver, borg etc.

when someone better than fed comes along, people will say the same thing.

sampras was, is, and always will be, a great player. but fed is even better.

Realize that people have a tendency to cling and glorify the past, as thongs cling and get stuck in one's booty.

[shrakkie]

Krajicek certainly had had Pete's number.

[federerfanatic]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

You would be suprised how good Ivanisevic really is with his forehand if you actually watched one of his matches. Accurate and consistent? No, but plenty of pop on the ball, and it was one of those shots you don't want to be on. Not only that, but for a guy so tall he could move extremely well and had good enough volleys to back up his huge serve.

Rafter is a pretty solid serve and volley player, but what really made him better then the other S&V (other then Sampras) players of his time was that he could play from the baseline and stay in the point. Although he was no threat back there, he was good enough to find himself an opening to get to net.

It really suprises me when people talk so much trash about players of the past when they've actually never even watched a highlight clip let alone actual matches of them playing.

You are a moron to say I have never seen these players, I have seen them play many times and that is what they were. Ivanisevic sucked except for his serve, Cliff Drysdale and Fred Stolle said so a ton of times commentating on him, "if you get serve back he is out to sea" I guess they never saw him play either. You are obviously a Sampras fanboy who is trying to build Ivanisevic up just because he was a Sampras opponent. Sorry we are not fooled by your "you must have never seen the guy play" crap. Except for his great serve, he sucked, you arent fooling anybody, and most tennis know-whos who saw him play said the same thing at the time.

Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

[Lambsscroll]

Fed has no weakness. Fed has all Pete's strengths but not his weaknesses. Ask Agassi. BTW didn't Hewitt take apart Pete in a US Open final?

[Chadwixx]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

Yeah I have seen Rafter play. Second rate serve-volleyer who was a very late bloomer and won his 2 slams against Rusedski and beating an injured Sampras and Phillipousis to win the other. So so ground game, weak return game. Wow player, not!

Nah rafter was first class. He was the serve and volley version of hewitt, busted his *** on every point.

[35ft6]

I don't think these arguments exist because we forgot -- they exist because we still remember. Think about it. If we really forgot, there would be no Roger versus Sampras threads.

In my opinion, the reason some people still hesitate to pass the GOAT crown to Roger is because it happened so soon, because the memories of Sampras being called a once in 50 or 100 years player, whose records might not be broken until everybody who's ever seen him play is dead, is still so fresh in our heads. You almost feel wishy washy when you say somebody is the greatest ever and then 4 years later you're saying it about somebody else. But here we are...

[alwaysatnet]

Originally Posted by Chadwixx

Just basing my opinion on matches i have watched recently. Im guessing you missed him miss the two volleys against fed at crunch time. Im also guessing you havent seen the safin match. Pete played very passive vs safin, he didnt go for it on big points.

I captured it last night on the comp which is why im bringing it up. So continue argueing on what you remember, I actually have these matches and saw what really happened.

Also check out the final point in the safin-sampras match, pete losses on a cross court appoach shot, ala roddick.

Yeah, it still amazes me. He sucks so much yet won all those grand slam titles. Isn't that amazing? Huh?

[Duzza]

How many threads do we need about this same argument. It's the stupidest thing I have ever read. Federer is clearly winning the race at the moment, and will probably gain the complete GOAT status if he keeps going as he well as he is. Face it, please. History was good, but get over it.

[yonex90]

I think an answer to your orginal question is that yes most people have forgotten how great he was, but I'm not saying that he's better than Federer or anything either. I think a lot of people forgot how great Borg was when Sampras was playing and etc. It's natural.
But I grew up watching Sampras and Agassi and I love those childhood memories but I always remember that Agassi had a chance to win against him going into the finals and for the last two years I haven't felt that anyone has a had a chance to beat him, so I think that this era of domination by Fed without a chance to beat him is somewhat unprecidented.
Yet Borg could win the French and Wembledon back to back two years in a row and no one has dominated on those two surfaces since then either. So in a way there's an arguement that the depth of Borg's game could trump Fed or Sampras at this point.
I don't get into these things because I think just like great music, these players have to be split into era's. Each one being very different than the one before it.

[OnceWas]

haven't forgotten how good Sampras was on hardcourts. Also haven't forgotten how vulnerable he was on clay, either. Would still take Federer as a better all around player. No disrepect to Sampras .

[caulcano]

Originally Posted by deucecourt

Let's be serious Fed is not way better than Sampras. Fed moves better and has a better backhand but Sampras was better at the net, has a better serve and might have a slight edge with his forehand.

I agree FED is not way better.

Each player have strengths and weaknesses. However, I like to think of FED as a more consistent player than SAMP ever was (the records show this clearly).