If Sampras playes today like in his prime, what will be his ATP ranking?

[Max G.]

It would be close...

Fed has an amazing record in Slam finals, but Sampras's was awesome as well. It would all hinge on who would win in their head-to-head when they played in the finals - the guy that took home the Slams would end the year #1, and the guy that didn't would suffer enough of a hit to his confidence to lose in other places as well.

And I'm certainly not qualified to guess who would do better if they both played each other in their primes... I don't think any of us here are.

[fastdunn]

We'll know better by the end of both Federer and Nadal's career.

[scotus]

Originally Posted by sureshs

But the balls lacked the killer power that you see today, and that too even from lower ranked players.

The balls did not "lack" the killer power. Today's players just have a little more of it. But you are correct in saying that today most players across the board from #1 down to #300 hit harder. The previous generations, I think, had a more pronounced discrepancy in power between the top players and the rest of the field.

But Lendl's groundies from 20 years ago will still have sufficient killer power today. Agassi's, Courier's, and Sampras' shots from 15 years ago will still wreak havoc today. Becker will still be the "boom-boom," and Edberg will still be charging the net and winning.

[vle1234]

I think John mac would own everyone if he was at his prime.

[aRod36]

no doubt in my mind that johnny mac would dominat in his prime

but

i would say
sampras at #1
nadal at #2
fed at #3

sampras would take out fed in the finals grand slams on hard and grass
so fed wouldnt have many gs's and nadal would take out sampras and fed at RG.

just my .2

[MaxT]

#2. #2. #2. #2. #2. #2. #2. #2. #2.

Originally Posted by Steve Dykstra

In my opinion Sampras playing today would be ranked either 2 or 3. I do not know who would have the edge between him and Federer, but I do believe that Federer would have a much better overall record against the rest of the field than Sampras, and would comfortably be #1. Federer is much more dominant currently than Sampras ever was. I am not sure if Sampras was consistent enough to get more points than Nadal either. Sampras wasn't a huge factor on clay, which is where a huge amount of Nadal's points come from, so I don't see Sampras' presence making a huge impact on Nadal. He would probably have more of a dent in Federer, because they excel on similar surfaces. I think Sampras would be tight with Nadal for #2 and Federer would still be #1 (but not as big a lead).

Of course, if Sampras did have the edge on Federer in head to heads and was able to beat Federer in Grand Slams, that might be very harmful to Federer's confidence, and he might not perform as well against the rest of the tour and at smaller events, so Sampras could still end up #1 if he could take down Federer.

I am really not sure, but I will say for sure he would be top 3 with Nadal and Federer. No one else on tour can come close to his top level.

I read these sort of comments often so I want to put this into perspective. Despite the fact that Sampras didn't win every match on tour or play in every single final of evry tournament he entered like Federer does, Sampras won 762 matches and lost 222 matches. Taking into account that Sampras didn't win a tournament from 2000 to 2002, bringing down his percentage, that is a staggering win loss ratio.

That tells me that Sampras would get to number 1 in any era.

[ckthegreek]

Originally Posted by RiosTheGenius

where did you get the idea that the competition is much higher nowadays?.. I think you're very wrong. let's see:

Federer's Competition Today:
Nadal, Nalbandian...mmmm .... that's it, everybody else is hot and cold, retiring, or looking good in the future.

Sampras' Competition:
Ivanisevic, Muster, Krajicek, Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Kuerten,

I know few of the players mentioned in the Sampras era are still active, but their real days of glory were during the time Sampras was #1 and do not represent a threat to Roger Federer today... except for Safin actually.... he's got such good hands that he will be a threat when he's 85 yrs old.

Some more names: Becker, Edberg, Courier

[Steve Dykstra]

Originally Posted by laurie

I read these sort of comments often so I want to put this into perspective. Despite the fact that Sampras didn't win every match on tour or play in every single final of evry tournament he entered like Federer does, Sampras won 762 matches and lost 222 matches. Taking into account that Sampras didn't win a tournament from 2000 to 2002, bringing down his percentage, that is a staggering win loss ratio.

That tells me that Sampras would get to number 1 in any era.

Sure Sampras had a great overall record, I did not say anything that would suggest he did not. Federer's record over the last couple years is well over 90%. Sampras was surely better than his overall career winning percentage of 77% during his prime, but he never approached a 90% winning percentage for any extended period of time as Federer has (note: I did not research this, but am pretty certain this is true). I stand by my point.

[superman1]

Sampras did everything he needed to do to remain #1 for 6 six years. One can imagine that if he also had Federer and Nadal to deal with, he'd take it up a notch and work a little harder at the smaller tournaments to bring his points up.

On today's slow surfaces, he'd have more trouble with Fed/Nadal. If you put Fed and Nadal back in time on the faster courts, you'd have to give Sampras the edge.

[acetennisman]

I would hope that sampras would be number 2. Federer would play more tournaments and do better in the ones he played(because sampras tried during a lot of big tournaments but didnt go all out like he did during the slams). I would love to see sampras kick Nadals *** on grass or hard. I think that a player that knows how to take returns, and cream the ball into the corner could take nadal down. I think that nadal would pass sampras, but not enough times to get the break(especially the fact that his placement isnt the best(because he uses alot of clearance), and because his defensive looping shots are easily put away by a competent vollyer who doesn't choke. I would think that even fed would have some problems with sampras because of the constant pressure(and the non-choking aspect), and his serve(even though fed is the best at returning, we never watch him play a huge server who can apply constant pressure off the return).

[onkystomper]

The Sampras Serve alone was so dangerous that he would be competing for top spot with federer. It would really be a Golden age if there was Nadal Federer & Sampras all competing.

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Im a sampras fan but roger would still be number1.. His baseline skills are much better than sampras was but not only that feds much more dangerous than your typical baseliner like agassi with more weapons. If agassi was in his prime too fed would beat him more easily than sampras could. Sampras at wimbledon of course with his greatest serve ever, determimation, will power, hunger,would give fed problems but i still would bet money on fed. So i say sampras top 5 with agassi. Feds acomplishments on clay is also incredible for his style. His 1-0 win over a in prime sampras at wimbledon also holds weight. Also look at his record vs agassi vs samp agassi.

[Roy]

No. 2 behind Fed.