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

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by pringles

Sampras is probably the best player currently who doesn't have a case for being the GOAT. Federer took it away from him by matching him on grass/hard courts (even surpassing him on hard courts) and being 3 leagues above him on clay. Sampras doesn't have any "special achievements" to put him in the coversation unlike:
- Borg who did the channel Slam 3 times on completely different surfaces
- Nadal who completely dominated a surface, won all 4 majors and has a positive h2h against virtually everybody
- Laver with 2 calender slams
- Federer who almost completely dominated half a decade, I could write a whole chapter about Federer's "special" achievements but let's name a couple: winning Wimbledon/US 5 times in a row each, 23 major SF in a row, 17 majors

Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had. Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one.

And If you're gonna put Borg as a GOAT candidate then you have to put Nadal.. Simple as that.. Nadal has gotten the best EVERY ONE of his main rivals.. Borg couldn't do that. Nadal won all 4 slams.. Borg didn't. Nadal also has the same number of slams as Borg.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

14 slams
Record Year #1
Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
5 USO titles (most finals appearances)
2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
Stopped and dominated his main rivals
Davis Cup
2 AO's


He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him

regardless of how much I hate him or you idolize him, he does not "deserve" to be in the conversation.. it used to be that you can make a case for him, but not anymore. how can he be in the conversation when a fellow-contender has completely eclipsed him??

[pringles]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had.

And Pete had no FO. Your point?

Besides Borg just barely missed out on a US Open title, he reached 4 finals and IMO was just unlucky not to score once at least, he had a great shot in 1980 and 1976 but just couldn't deliver that final blow.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one

Primo Sampras never dominated Agassi in majors. He was 0-3 in majors against Andre on surfaces that suited Andre and 6-0 on surfaces which favored Sampras. Could've easily been 6-3 for Agassi if Sampras didn't suck on clay or Agassi sucked at the US Open.

Besides, you don't get extra points for beating your rival more often than not. Only in one way - you get more titles to your total resume. Who cares, for example, that Sampras could beat Agassi at the 2001 US Open when later on he was squashed by Hewitt in the final?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by pringles

And Pete had no FO. Your point?

Besides Borg just barely missed out on a US Open title, he reached 4 finals and IMO was just unlucky not to score once at least, he had a great shot in 1980 and 1976 but just couldn't deliver that final blow.

My point is you can put Borg there and not sampras? Laughable. Sampras won slams 12 years apart, had way more time on top then Borg, way more longevity, more slams, dominated his best surface more then Borg dominated his, more YEC, dominated his main rivals, Borg couldn't (Neither could Fed for that matter) etc..

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Racket technology, carpet is gone, fast courts in general are gone, variety is gone, surface specialists are gone

Racquet technology? OK but not that drastically since the 90s, I would not call that a major change. Carpet was already marginal in the 90s. Fast courts are not gone, neither is variety (Isner plays nothing like Simon) and Nadal must be the biggest specialist that ever lived, so I disagree with all the rest.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by NatF

Beating the field counts the most and Federer did it alot better than Sampras ever did.

if beating the field counts laver is the greatest. beating the field is important but quality of opposition and beating your main rivals is important too. rivalries make legends, not wins alone.

but still IMO Fed is the GOAT. nadal is a serious dent in feds resumee (as he lost to him also in his prime and also off clay -was not owned but baby nadal was always at least his equal on all surfaces exept indoor) however I cannot overlook sampras weakness on clay.

not the 3 more slams make fed the GOAT but that he was a dominant force on all surfaces. without nadal he would have 4+ slams on all surfaces and that is unique in tennis history. federer is the most complete player ever considering the diversity of surfaces.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had. Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one.

And If you're gonna put Borg as a GOAT candidate then you have to put Nadal.. Simple as that.. Nadal has gotten the best EVERY ONE of his main rivals.. Borg couldn't do that. Nadal won all 4 slams.. Borg didn't. Nadal also has the same number of slams as Borg.

that's the last straw that Pete and his legion of ***** seem to want to hold on to... something they manufactured in a desperate attempt to knock Federer and still keep pete in the discussion.

Pete's main "rival" Agassi had exactly 2 slams when Pete's prime ended!! If having such credentials constitutes a "main" rival, then you must concede that Pete faced almost no competition during his prime. How can someone with 2 slams constitute a "main" rival. If that were to be the case, then Hewitt, Safin and to some extent Roddick were Federer's comparable rivals, whom he dominated!

btw, contrary to your claim that eras can't be compared, you seem perfectly ok indulging in that exercise as long as you can draw favorable mileage from it?

[90's Clay]

If there is such thing as a GOAT its probably Laver or Pancho. The have the least holes in their resumes

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

that's the last straw that Pete and his legion of ***** seem to want to hold on to... something they manufactured in a desperate attempt to knock Federer and still keep pete in the discussion.

Pete's main "rival" Agassi had exactly 2 slams when Pete's prime ended!! If having such credentials constitutes a "main" rival, then you must concede that Pete faced almost no competition during his prime. How can someone with 2 slams constitute a "main" rival. If that were to be the case, then Hewitt, Safin and to some extent Roddick were Federer's comparable rivals, whom he dominated!

btw, contrary to your claim that eras can't be compared, you seem perfectly ok indulging in that exercise as long as you can draw favorable mileage from it?

ROFLMAO.. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Rafter etc.. is no competiton?

Then whats On and off again Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Pup Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, 40 year old Agassi, Gonzales, Baghdatis? Roadkill? Outside of Nadal and (who didn't hit his prime until 200 and Agassi who's prime was over before Fed's began, there is less then half a dozen slams between all those guys

[pringles]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

My point is you can put Borg there and not sampras? Laughable. Sampras won slams 12 years apart, had way more time on top then Borg, way more longevity, more slams, dominated his best surface more then Borg dominated his, more YEC, dominated his main rivals, Borg couldn't (Neither could Fed for that matter) etc..

You don't understand what we're arguing about. I said Sampras had no "special achievements" and I stick to that. He has no single achievement that will make people say "wow no-one is ever going to match that!". At least nobody thinks so now, back in 2002-2003 a lot of people thought that no-one is going to touch his 14 majors and 7 Wimbledons for a long long time.

1)He has 7 Wimbledons? Great. Federer has 7 as well and 8 finals.
2)He has majors 12 years apart? Who cares? Should Federer get more credit for winning 15 majors in barely 6 years?
3)He dominated his main rivals? And who would that be again? With Federer it's obvious you have Djokovic and Nadal (Murray might join later on) - all-time greats already. Who did Sampras beat again? Ivanisevic and Rafter?

Besides, Sampras didn't dominate grass more than Nadal did clay, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sampras didn't give a damn about grass bar one tournament - Wimbledon while Nadal has gone like 300-10 in the last 7-8 years or so on that surface which includes a major and 3 Masters. Sampras would NEVER dominate to that degree on grass if there was Wimbledon backed up with 3 Masters. Heck, he couldn't even dominate Queen's Club and won like 11 Masters titles in his whole career...imagine him winning 2-3 Masters for 7-8 years like Nadal did. Really...

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

If there is such thing as a GOAT its probably Laver or Pancho. The have the least holes in their resumes

really? care to compare and contrast the "holes" in the resumes of Laver, Pancho and Federer?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

ROFLMAO.. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Rafter etc.. is no competiton?

Then whats On and off again Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Pup Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, 40 year old Agassi, Gonzales, Baghdatis? Roadkill? Outside of Nadal (who didn't hit his prime until 200, there is less then half a dozen slams between all those guys

your point is about dominating the main rival, so stick to it. if you want to include ALL rivals, then let's sum up the h2h counts for Pete vs his rivals, and Federer vs his rivals. Are you ready?

btw, you're again comparing Becker, Edberg etc. with Hewitt, Safin etc., despite your claims to the contrary that players across eras cannot be compared (nevermind the fact that Hewitt and Safin pwned Pete in their maiden slam finals... lol, so much for mental strength; can't hold off first timers).

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by pringles

You don't understand what we're arguing about. I said Sampras had no "special achievements" and I stick to that. He has no single achievement that will make people say "wow no-one is ever going to match that!"

1)He has 7 Wimbledons? Great. Federer has 7 as well and 8 finals.
2)He has majors 12 years apart? Who cares? Should Federer get more credit for winning 15 majors in barely 6 years?
3)He dominated his main rivals? And who would that be again? With Federer it's obvious you have Djokovic and Nadal (Murray might join later on) - all-time greats already. Who did Sampras beat again? Ivanisevic and Rafter?

Besides, Sampras didn't dominate grass more than Nadal did clay, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sampras didn't give a damn about grass bar one tournament - Wimbledon while Nadal has gone like 300-10 in the last 7-8 years or so on that surface which includes a major and 3 Masters. Sampras would NEVER dominate to that degree on grass if there was Wimbledon backed up with 3 Masters. Heck, he couldn't even dominate Queen's Club and won like 11 Masters titles in his whole career...imagine him winning 2-3 Masters for 7-8 years like Nadal did. Really...

Rightt... So :

Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...

Isn't "special".


Go to bed ****

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion

Sampras can't. Stop kidding yourself.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by NatF

He won 2 slams a year 4 times. He had 286 weeks as the world #1 and 6 YE #1's. He also won the YEC 5x to Nadal's 0. Plus he has 3 more slams...

Sampras > Nadal by a big margin at the moment.

I agree that Sampras is ahead of Nadal for the moment. Though I see Nadal surparsing him.

Sampras makes the same mistake as a lot of people in talking about head to head without reference to surface. If Sampras had played Agassi the majority of times on Clay, then Agassi would have had the dominant head to head. Head to head discussions without reference to surface are irrelevant. (Pick the head to head score Borg vs McEnroe if they had played all their matches on clay rather than none on clay). Until commentators and people interested in tennis stop mentioning head to head without reference to surface then we are going to have these problems of perception.

The Federer Nadal head to head aberation is unique in tennis where two rivals have played the majority of their matches on one of the players best surface and the other players worst surface. Have there ever been any other occassions in history when the top 2's rivalry surface has favoured one player massively?

So in Summary

1/ Sampras is wrong about his analysis of head to head vs main rival because he doesn't factor in surface.

2/ Sampras is still ahead of Nadal in terms of Greatness factors - but perhaps not for too many more years. Though I have to say, I rate the WTF highly as an event - and Nadal's lack of success there hurts him. (Though one in the same breath could talk about Sampras' relatively weak Masters 1000 showings).

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Rightt... So :

Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...

Isn't "special".


Go to bed ****

you might want to add "sucked on clay" to the list, and it will make it truly special.

[pringles]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Rightt... So :

Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...

Isn't "special".


Go to bed ****

Once again, you're proving that you can't read properly. Does anyone go "wow, nobody is going to break that record!" at any of Sampras' records? Or any you mentioned? Besides, those aren't even records. On top of my head Federer has more majors and WTF, Nadal has more Davis Cups, Federer has spent more time at no 1.

I'm not saying that Pete didn't have a great career, it's simply not GOATworthy anymore after watching Federer surpass Sampras in every department. He does NOT have any special achievements anymore. There is no single record of Sampras that makes people think that no-one will ever break it.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

your point is about dominating the main rival, so stick to it. if you want to include ALL rivals, then let's sum up the h2h counts for Pete vs his rivals, and Federer vs his rivals. Are you ready?

btw, you're again comparing Becker, Edberg etc. with Hewitt, Safin etc., despite your claims to the contrary that players across eras cannot be compared (nevermind the fact that Hewitt and Safin pwned Pete in their maiden slam finals... lol, so much for mental strength; can't hold off first timers).

And Fed can't hold off his main rival. Hasn't been able to his ENTIRE career.. In fact, he gets taken to the woodshed on THREE count them THREE surfaces.. And has let his rival gather 11 slams and counting. Sampras only allowed Andre to gather 8 (And most of those came after Sampras' prime was done)

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Sampras can't. Stop kidding yourself.

actually, Sampras can (and it appears that he has been). the only difference is, if other did, they DO have a case, but Sampras doesn't.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by pringles

Once again, you're proving that you can't read properly. Does anyone go "wow, nobody is going to break that record!" at any of Sampras' records? Or any you mentioned? Besides, those aren't even records.

I expect records to continue to be broken as long as they are placed.. The only records that probably will never be broken are Laver's 200 titles and 2 Calendar slams. Anything outside of those are ripe for the picking

It doesn't mean they aren't special records though