How could someone call Sampras the Goat

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

Yea Pete was great on clay! Pete is GREAT, but there is a huge difference in surfaces. If he played on todays slow surfaces he'd be in trouble, big trouble.

Fed managed to adapt and still hold a winning record against his opponents, Nadal? Yea take away clay, have Fed not play RG like Conners, and Fed is leading Nadal.

Don't just compare era's with era's, but conditions, court surfaces, equipement, etc.

Pete defeated Federer on "today's" surfaces in an exo, remember. I know that was just an exo, but it seemed that there were times during the match when Pete's slots on his ground strokes were really finding their mark, despite that Roger seemed at times to be trying earnestly to silence Pete's game. If Pete were a young man peaking today, I believe that he actually could boss a few of today's top ten around off the ground, to say nothing of his serve.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by tennisbuck

It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?

Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

[nikdom]

I can make a case. Pete is more hairy, thus making him a much closer Goat candidate.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by rajah84

Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

What are these "champion qualities?"

[corners]

Because anyone that saw him play at his best knows that he was virtually unbeatable. There are accomplishments, where Federer arguably stands alone, and then there is level of play. Personally, I think Fed's best level beats Pete's best level, but others disagree. If they're right, then Pete might be the greatest. I think that's how the argument would go. (I don't buy the strength of competition argument because I think Fed would have dominated Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera just as Pete did, or to an even greater degree.) Ultimately it's all just opinion anyway. I mean, how the hell would I know that Fed dominates Becker?

[tennis_badger]

nadal is more of a GOAT candidate than pete

[zagor]

Given that the whole GOAT topic is quite subjective and that Sampras is one of the greatest players of all time don't see why this is so perplexing to some? The man was a terrific player.

Personally, I consider Fed to be a better player but Sampras is certainly a valid choice.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by rajah84

Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

and in the opinion of most, Federer is greater than Sampras. Really, Sampras didn't know that the French was important to his legacy? why do you make him sound like a retard?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by rajah84

Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

His idol was Rod Laver whose most celebrated accomplishment was winning Calendar Grand Slam (twice) so disagree, I'm sure Sampras wanted the FO and knew it's importance, he just wasn't good enough on that surface.

Also Fed wouldn't be so great in the "stats department" if he didn't posses a lot of champion qualities himself, talent alone is not enough to achieve so much in the game.

[ultradr]

Originally Posted by tennisbuck

It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?

Wait until about 10 years after Federer retires.

Then we will start to know what Federer's achievements are about....

[tennis_badger]

Originally Posted by rajah84

Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

lol, hillarious, 17 GS champion and all those records he broke and you're saying he doesnt have a champion qualities? yeah, those wins are just fluke...

[Laurie]

I have been consistent in saying that there is no one greatest player of all time, especially as the Open era has only been around for the last 45 years or so.

As for Sampras being the "greatest" or wanting to be known as "the greatest" then that is not possible. Federer has broken all of his records bar one and is still playing at a very high level at the age of 31.

When Sampras won the US Open in 2002 he should have kept on playing in my opinion, I thought that at the time. Also, Sampras knew the importance of the French Open, an extensive article / interview was done on Sampras in early 1997 (might still be on the internet I'm sure) where it was stated that Sampras needed to win the French to be considered the greatest. In fact, Pete Fisher was quoted as saying just that, apparently they would have arguments over dinner about that topic (this is before Pete Fisher had trouble with the law and went to prison).

Sampras' counter argument apparently was to state if he racked up the majors that would be as significant as not winning the French, so breaking the record became his obsession I suppose. As we know as well, Sampras' clay results took a real dive from 1997 onwards, when you would have thought they would actually improve as he was only 25 years old at the time.

Therefore I don't think Sampras can legitimately say he wants to be known as the greatest player to play tennis. He can legitimately say he is one of the greatest and put his name forward as one of the few players to play the highest level of tennis when in the zone.

We will never know but I often wondered how Sampras' clay results would have fared had Gullickson stayed alive and continued to be his coach until around 2000? He might not have won the French but perhaps he would have taken the clay tournaments more seriously and been much more committed to it 1997 and post 1997.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by DeShaun

Pete defeated Federer on "today's" surfaces in an exo, remember. I know that was just an exo, but it seemed that there were times during the match when Pete's slots on his ground strokes were really finding their mark, despite that Roger seemed at times to be trying earnestly to silence Pete's game. If Pete were a young man peaking today, I believe that he actually could boss a few of today's top ten around off the ground, to say nothing of his serve.

You do know that the exho matches are more or less pre-determined, yes? It is no coincidence that the matches almost always include a tiebreak and a set with a single break: 7-6, 6-4 or 6-4, 7-6.

[pvaudio]

Originally Posted by rajah84

Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.

What the flying **** are you talking about? Even by your logic, the fact that he didn't "try" at the French means he's not a multi-faceted. I don't even buy that because in Sampras' day, people were still hailing Laver's achievements.

[ctjpm]

No that indicates the player was the most successful winning GS championships. Beating your main rival 12% of the time does not denote the greatest.

Take clay away. Why? Federer is a former RG champion and was more successful in Hamburg than Nadal. He stated himself he felt natural playing on clay, why remove an historic surface because it doesn't suit an argument?

[ctjpm]

'Surely the competitor with the most slams is the GOAT?'

No that indicates the player was the most successful winning GS championships. Beating your main rival 12% of the time does not denote the greatest.

Sorry missed the quote.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

and in the opinion of most, Federer is greater than Sampras. Really, Sampras didn't know that the French was important to his legacy? why do you make him sound like a retard?

I should have worded it another way. What I meant was, compared to Roger's career, the FO wasn't as important. Pete wasn't chasing Pete if you follow me.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by tennis_badger

lol, hillarious, 17 GS champion and all those records he broke and you're saying he doesnt have a champion qualities? yeah, those wins are just fluke...

Don't get exited, I never said he didn't have champion qualities. I was comparing both their qualities. And it's no contest really, unbiased fans will admit that Pete had more of that "champion" quality than Rog. Pete made the most of what he had and dominated his rivals. Rog, I've always felt under achieved. I think he should have won the calendar slam more than once and allowing Nadal to own him is his greatest fault as a champion. If you compare the numbers Rog wins, obviously, but measuring the status of a champion has more to do with character than stats. Rog has done well, he's the most talented player ever, 17-time GS champ and a great ambassador for the sport. There's no such thing as the perfect player. Wanting and believing him to have everything is just silly and greedy.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by sureshs

LOL that was a good one. A GOAT needs to have a winning H2H against his main rival

Main rival = the field.

Federer has a winning record vs the field.... much, much moreso than Sampras had.

So, what does Sampras have over Federer again other than consecutive year ending number ones? Pretty much nothing in the bigger scheme of things.

[rajah84]

Originally Posted by pvaudio

What the flying **** are you talking about? Even by your logic, the fact that he didn't "try" at the French means he's not a multi-faceted. I don't even buy that because in Sampras' day, people were still hailing Laver's achievements.

Him not "trying" has nothing to do with his abilities, as I'm sure you're aware. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Greatness isn't measured by multi-faceted game.

There was much more media play on Federer/Sampras than the Sampras/Laver thing. For the most part they only started mentioning Laver when Pete was getting close to breaking those records. From the beginning, Roger's career was shadowed by Pete all the way down to the comparisons of their game. By 05, Roger's career was already paved, break Pete's Records and become the "greatest player ever" giving him a clear head start in the competition to break his rival's records. Pete didn't consider the race to greatness till he was half way through his career.