If Sampras had 4 less Wimbledon titles but had a Roland Garros title

[timnz]

If Sampras had 4 less Wimbledon titles but had a Roland Garros title, would that make for a better record than the one he actually holds?

My opinion is that 1 Roland Garros isn't worth 4 Wimbledons.

Yes, it is nice to win every slam but slam overall counts are more important.

[90's Clay]

I don't think so. His dominance at wimbledon was unparalleled if you consider how strong the grass field was during Pete's time and considering the fact he managed 7 wimbledon in an 8 year span from 93-2000. Thats pretty nuts.

He didn't win the french but he does have some big clay titles. Davis Cup on SLOW clay, a Rome title, and some good French Open results beating the likes of Courier, Muster, Bruguera etc.

[TMF]

According to YouCantBeSerious, he thinks Nadal > Sampras simply because he's got the career slam.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...&postcount=294

[Gizo]

I strongly doubt that players like Sampras or McEnroe would trade in 1 of their Wimbledon titles for a RG title. Despite Mac's nightmares about the 1984 RG final, I'm sure he would much prefer being a 3 time Wimbledon champion than a 2 time one. For Sampras trying to break records at Wimbledon was a huge incentive.

These players don't view their careers and legacies like many fans do, and for them winning as many Wimbledon and US Open titles as possible were their main goals.

[Orion3]

Don't think so.

What it shows is that in an era when court surfaces and speeds were materially different; Sampras was the king of grass.

We currently live in an era when grass is little more than a hardcourt with hair.

In many respects I think that the reduced court variabilities has been very good for competition but different courts make for different styles - I miss this.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I don't think so. His dominance at wimbledon was unparalleled if you consider how strong the grass field was during Pete's time and considering the fact he managed 7 wimbledon in an 8 year span from 93-2000. Thats pretty nuts.

He didn't win the french but he does have some big clay titles. Davis Cup on SLOW clay, a Rome title, and some good French Open results beating the likes of Courier, Muster, Bruguera etc.

I have to agree really that Sampras' clay results are underrated, he's one of the best pure clay courters of all time.....

Also, it's amazing just how less nuts and amazing it is that Federer won Wimbledon 7 times in a 9 year span given that his competition not just on grass but on all surfaces, was FAR inferior to that of Sampras' time.

[roberttennis54]

Short answer. No!!

[BevelDevil]

An interesting alternate question would be:

"If Pete gained one RG title, what's the most he could give up (in terms of GS titles) while keeping the same prominence in tennis history?"


Going through the options, I came up with things he shouldn't give up:

- Any of his Wimbledons, since 7 is a big record
- More than 2, since he would fall behind Roy Emerson
- Any of his AOs, since being a repeat winner has value
- His last USO. Winning when over 30 is huge.

I also think his stock goes significantly up if he only sacrifices one non-Wimbledon title, since he is still second in GS total, though tied with Emerson.

Therefore, I figure he has to give up two titles from the USO to gain a French.

Which ones? I think 1995 (Agassi) and 1996 (Chang). While this hurts his record against his arch rival, the timing is okay since Pete still beats him at least twice towards the end. (Although I'm tempted to get rid of 1990 and keep 1995.)

Meanwhile, if Pete won RG 1993 or 1994, he would have wins over both Brugera and Courier in the same tournament, and he would have a non-calendar grand slam. Huge.

In exchange, he would have: failed to break Emerson's record, won nothing in 1996 (which kills off one of his "consecutive" records), lost weeks at #1, and vastly reduced his dominance at the USO.