Why are people so high on Sampras?

ChrisRF

Legend
Kids these days don’t get that. Sampras didn’t care about the FO. And he didn’t really care about the AO either. No one besides Federer has come close to matching Pete’s 12 combined titles at these two majors.
Yeah, that’s why he told anyone he was aiming for Emerson’s Slam record, because then he wouldn’t care about 2 of 4 chances per year. Sounds logical.

By the way, about what DID Sampras care then? He didn’t care about Masters as well according to some fans, and that’s why he only won 11. So he cared about 3 tournaments per year (Wimbledon, US Open, YEC)? Not much for a guy who was portrayed back then as someone who actually ONLY cares about tennis, in contrast to Agassi etc. It’s a strange metamorphosis this guy has gone through.

In reality, Australia was fully regocnized as a Slam in the 90s. Actually Agassi before 1995 was the last one of the elite who regularly skipped. Sampras never deliberately skipped it, as well as the French Open.

Before anyone says "You haven’t watched him play", I can only repeat that I have watched tons of Sampras matches back then and still have many on my harddisk now. He was one of my biggest sport idols in my childhood, but I HATE unrealistic mythology. He could beat anyone on his day, but he was also very much beatable everywhere apart from Wimbledon. His "normal" day-in-day-out level is below the Big 3, and not only on slow courts.
 

DeathStar

Rookie
After today's big 3 it is definitely Sampras. Pete's achievements might not be at their level, but you cannot compare generations. A lot of things change like court surfaces, equipment, better recovery methods, best of 3 finals in masters & WTF.

Pete's achievements were more significantly more then the #2 of his generation, which makes him the definite #1 of his era. The big 3 today are putting up ridiculous numbers, but they are all very close in achievements.

After Laver only Agassi was able to win all 4 slams and all of sudden 3 guys in the same generation are able to win all 4.

Pete's level of play & mind definitely put him alongside the big 3.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Pete was an incredible athlete. His forecourt coverage and offensive skillset are something that kids growing up in the 00s have never seen. Racket/string tech and court speeds were different so it’s impossible to compare him to the modern game style, but I have little doubt that he could have taken it to the big 3 on his preferred surfaces.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Pete was an incredible athlete. His forecourt coverage and offensive skillset are something that kids growing up in the 00s have never seen. Racket/string tech and court speeds were different so it’s impossible to compare him to the modern game style, but I have little doubt that he could have taken it to the big 3 on his preferred surfaces.

Pete would have been simply worn down by Djoker and Nadal.

I loved him, he was my favorite player until Fed came along.

BUT he was always lazy and skated by on his unreal talent/ballstriking/power/athleticism. Like Fed, he lacked patience relative to a counterpuncher or grinder and preferred to just blitz his opponents off the court on his service games.

Plus, by 30 he was totally washed--a reflection of his laziness. If he'd taken Federer's approach to training, he could have extended his career by a few years and won a few more Slams.

He was the last of the great 'old-school' players who just went by feel and trained by playing. He didn't do a lot of off-court stuff. No stretching, yoga etc.

That approach would not fly today.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I think Mcenroe, Connors, and Lendl all have substantial arguments for being greater than Sampras.

They have no arguments for being greater than Sampras, who has 14 majors and 6 straight YE #1's (never mind 7 Wimbledon titles). The other three are ATG's, but tier II. There's no tennis historian who would ever put Mac, Ivan or Jimbo ahead of Pete. Sampras is so far ahead of them it's not even remotely debatable.
 

thrust

Legend
Nah it's the other way around.

Players are doing better than he ever did and they're now making up ridiculous excuses after the fact. Arguments, that by the way, nobody is using to talk up Agassi who was the precursor to the modern baseliner. It's really all ZOMG I dislike Djokovic and Nadal must hype servebot.

Sampras was a fast trick pony, and somehow that's much better than players who win every Grand Slam in the 21st century?
Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl also never won every slam in their century. 14 slams in three slams is superior to 11, 7, or an 8 slam winner who happened to win only 1 slam in 2 events
 

The Guru

Legend
I have to clarify my statement. I said there is an argument for Lendl, Connors and McEnroe meaning I think it's a lot closer than the general perception. I have Sampras ahead of Connors and McEnroe but behind the Big 3 Borg and Lendl.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
I have to clarify my statement. I said there is an argument for Lendl, Connors and McEnroe meaning I think it's a lot closer than the general perception. I have Sampras ahead of Connors and McEnroe but behind the Big 3 Borg and Lendl.
You can clarify it all you want, there is no argument for any cogent tennis analyst or historian to put Ivan, Jimbo or Mac ahead of Pete. Why not just be honest and say in your perception, those tier II guys are "a lot closer to Pete" than everyone else believes. That's fine, but to try and spin it that anyone else thinks so is a vast stretch.
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Man, we just easily forget how good tennis used to be? Why does Sampras not have a FO? Courts were drastically different across surfaces unlike today. Sampras should be more applauded not less after looking at this current tour.

Yeah, all the greatest athletes are playing today... Ronaldo, Messi, Brady, Federer, Rafa, Djoker, Trout, Crosby, Kershaw, steph... I could go on forever at all the dribble how today's best are so much better, guess what? They are not.
 

The Guru

Legend
You can clarify it all you want, there is no argument for any cogent tennis analyst or historian to put Ivan, Jimbo or Mac ahead of Pete. Why not just be honest and say in your perception, those tier II guys are "a lot closer to Pete" than everyone else believes. That's fine, but to try and spin it that anyone else thinks so is a vast stretch.
Just because nameless "tennis historians" agree with you doesn't make you or them right. I'm not trying to spin anything or be dishonest and you saying that I am is insulting and uncalled for. I just value Lendl's consistency across all surfaces against the field over Pete's dominance at a few fast court events every year. Just because Jimbo played only 3 or even 2 slams a year and Mac played 3 leading to Pete having way more slams, against clearly inferior competition by the way, doesn't make him leagues above them in the GOAT race. Pete only has 16 weeks at 1 over Lendl and 20 on Connors btw. You attempting to shut down debate by bullying and citing nameless experts over something that is far from cut and dry shows ignorance and inability to support your opinion.
 

The Guru

Legend
Man, we just easily forget how good tennis used to be? Why does Sampras not have a FO? Courts were drastically different across surfaces unlike today. Sampras should be more applauded not less after looking at this current tour.

Yeah, all the greatest athletes are playing today... Ronaldo, Messi, Brady, Federer, Rafa, Djoker, Trout, Crosby, Kershaw, steph... I could go on forever at all the dribble how today's best are so much better, guess what? They are not.
Right... because saying players that are older than Sampras should be rated closer to him is recency bias... #logic
 

ChrisG

Professional
comparing any era to the modern one we're currently living is so biased by the surface nature. I've just checked Fed's record at RG, in his first 6 participations he lost 3 times on 1st round to the legends Arazi or Horna, what about that for the GOAT status ? he wasn't a junior anymore, but the surface was so different . same with hard courts and grass. That's why players were mostly specialists to each kind of surface because it was impossible to be relevant on all of them.
Djoko or Fed would struggle way more than what they are used to against the likes of berasategui, rios or muster.
Sampras was a master on hard court/grass because that's was the best he could do. Seeing him flying on grass and a few weeks before it was such a pain to play against an unknown spaniard.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Even as a Sampras fan in my childhood I agree that Sampras is mythically overrated by some people who think he would destroy the Big 3. I admit that he was never really dominant apart from Wimbledon, won only one hardcourt Slam after being 25 (actually his last tournament, the 2002 US Open), won not a single ATP title apart from that US Open in 34 tries (!) after Wimbledon 2000, still being 28 then. And he did nothing on clay. Therefore often he was #1 with a smaller (adjusted) number of points than the WORST of the Big 3.

So yes, he cannot be anywhere near being GOAT.

But behind McEnroe, Connors and Lendl? Just come on, they have no arguments over him. Much less Slams in total and they all don’t have a Career Grand Slam either. Lendl was consistent, but clearly lacked the number of big titles. McEnroe had his huge 1984, but that one year won't make him better than Sampras overall. And Connors had a better longevity, but still he also didn't came close to Sampras overall. Most of his 109 titles were very small tournaments.

Sampras won 9 slams + 3 yec in 5 years 1993-97, that's pretty great no? Joe Kovic won 9 slams + 4 yec in 2011-15 for instance, of course he won a lot more masters too.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
He wasnt good enough to win the french, unlike Courier, Chang and Agassi who are also american.

You are partly right about australian open, he didnt play a few times and maybe could have 1 or even two more won there. But still he would be nowhere close to Federer.

And what about prime Sampras losing to Korda and Kucera? In superweakera 1997-1998 he was 25-27 years old and only won 3 slams.

What about Korda playing a legendary match? The Kucera loss sucked, sure.
 
R

Robert Baratheon

Guest
It's hard to get a proper feel for Pete's dominance in the '90s by simply looking at the statistics in a modern context. Surfaces were more varied, and Masters were not nearly as important. Even match scores are misleading. Pete never cared about doling out the bakery products - once he got a break he would often just kick back and relax on return games, knowing he could cruise to 6-3 or 6-4.
We were in agreement till here.
But..
but I'm not sure anyone bar perhaps Federer changed the modern game more than Sampras did.
Would you like to elaborate a bit on this?

I think guys like Agassi and Djokovic have a much higher impact on the modern game than Sampras.
For all the up and comers today and even most players on tour Novak is the template of how to play tennis.
Everyone tries to play like him because for the modern game and surfaces he is the most technically sound player.

Federer, Sampras and Nadal took tennis to the masses but changing the modern game should be attributed to players who play the modern game unlike Federer and Sampras who have a mixed style of modern and classical tennis.
 

mahesh69a

Semi-Pro
I think guys like Agassi and Djokovic have a much higher impact on the modern game than Sampras.
For all the up and comers today and even most players on tour Novak is the template of how to play tennis.
Everyone tries to play like him because for the modern game and surfaces he is the most technically sound player.
Its also good to have variety I think - like what Hsieh brings in for the WTA.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Pete would have been simply worn down by Djoker and Nadal.

I loved him, he was my favorite player until Fed came along.

BUT he was always lazy and skated by on his unreal talent/ballstriking/power/athleticism. Like Fed, he lacked patience relative to a counterpuncher or grinder and preferred to just blitz his opponents off the court on his service games.

Plus, by 30 he was totally washed--a reflection of his laziness. If he'd taken Federer's approach to training, he could have extended his career by a few years and won a few more Slams.

He was the last of the great 'old-school' players who just went by feel and trained by playing. He didn't do a lot of off-court stuff. No stretching, yoga etc.

That approach would not fly today.

I mean sure, he didn’t have a modern training approach, but the flip side of that is let’s take away modern rackets and strings, or even just modern medicine the big 3 when comparing them to him.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Sampras is good.
Sampras is life.
The question in 2019 should actually be: why is everyone so down on Sampras?

235655__02852.1342530985.380.500.jpg
 

JasonZ

Hall of Fame
And a fifth set TB loss instead of a straight-set masterclass. Korda played a great match too. Unfortunate that it took too much of him and he retired hurt in QF.

Prime Federer in his 20s would never ever lose to Korda or Kucera. And Sampras even was 1 point from defeat against Corretja in 1996 us open. Then he also lost in two against Chang in wtf semi 1995.

He was by the greatest player till Fed arrived, but could not play on highest level all the time like Fed could. Not even close
 
Last edited:

SamprasisGOAT

Hall of Fame
Man, we just easily forget how good tennis used to be? Why does Sampras not have a FO? Courts were drastically different across surfaces unlike today. Sampras should be more applauded not less after looking at this current tour.

Yeah, all the greatest athletes are playing today... Ronaldo, Messi, Brady, Federer, Rafa, Djoker, Trout, Crosby, Kershaw, steph... I could go on forever at all the dribble how today's best are so much better, guess what? They are not.
That’s my kind of post
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Can't compare eras. Sampras played in a different time than today's players where surfaces weren't homogenized and aggressive tennis was rewarded. Now you got Wimbledon playing slower than the AO and USO. And those are already slow as hell.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Prime Federer in his 20s would never ever lose to Korda or Kucera. And Sampras even was 1 point from defeat against Corretja in 1996 us open. Then he also lost in two against in wtf semi 1995.

He was by the greatest player till Fed arrived, but could not play on highest level all the time like Fed could. Not even close

Not in terms of overall longevity and dominance, but in terms of peak performances he could and did
 
R

Robert Baratheon

Guest
Although I don't give much value to this GOAT business but I will play along.
I just read about Connors career in detail for the 2nd time and it feels like that the 8 slams he has to his name don't do him justice.

He played the AO only twice in his life, winning once and reaching the finals in the other. The AO was played on grass back then in 1974-75.

He skipped or wasn't allowed to play the French Open in his 5 peak years(1974-1978).
He won USO on grass(1), clay(1) and hard(3).

Winning the USO on clay can be considered an equivalent of winning the French, can it not?
Connors won Wimbledon twice.
So he has 3 Hard Court, 4 Grass court and 1 Clay Court slams.
Seems like a pretty balanced resume to me considering what was the surfaced distribution back then.

His five USO came against Ken Rosewall(on grass), Bjorn Borg(CLAY and hard) and Ivan Lendl(hard and hard).
His Wimbledon victories were against Ken Rosewall and John McEnroe.
He made 4 out of 5 Wimbledon finals between 1974-1978.
His AO victory was against some dude named Phil Dent but other times he had great competition in his slam wins.

He made 12 consecutive Semifinals at the USO.
He made 4 Semifinals at the French despite skipping it throughout his peak years.

He has 5 consecutive years as YE#1.
12 consecutive years in the top 3. He stands alone by far.
He is not far from Sampras(286) in total weeks at #1 with 268 of his own.
He has 160 consecutive weeks at the top, only second to Roger, despite skipping the FO and many AO through his peak years.

He also didn't play a shït load of Masters Cup and WCT finals back in his peak years.

Everyone knows about his longevity and resilience.
Except the slam record he has everything equally good as Sampras or better despite having competition ranging from old Laver, Ashe, Newcombe and Rosewall to Borg and Vilas to McEnroe to Lendl.

I think all things considered and with me not being a "SLAM COUNT ABOVE ALL" guy I think Connors does have a case to be as great as Sampras if not greater.
 
R

Robert Baratheon

Guest
Read more about Connors' career here:
He turned professional in 1972 and won his first tournament, the Jacksonville Open. Connors was acquiring a reputation as a maverick in 1972 when he refused to join the newly formed Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP), the union that was embraced by most male professional players, in order to play in and dominate a series of smaller tournaments organized by Bill Riordan, his manager. However, Connors played in other tournaments and won the 1973 U.S. Pro Singles, his first significant title, toppling Arthur Ashe in a five-set final, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4, 3–6, 6–2.

Connors won eight Grand Slam singles championships: five US Opens, two Wimbledons, and one Australian Open. He did not participate in the French Open during his peak years (1974–78), as he was banned from playing by the event in 1974 due to his association with World Team Tennis(WTT).[6][7] and in the other four years was either banned or chose not to participate. He only played in two Australian Opens in his entire career, winning it in 1974 and reaching the final in 1975. Few highly ranked players, aside from Australians, travelled to Australia for that event up until the mid-1980s.

In 1974, Connors was the dominant player and held the ATP No. 1 ranking at the end of the year. He had a 99–4 record that year and won 15 tournaments of the 21 he entered, including three of the four Grand Slam singles titles. As noted, the French Open did not allow Connors to participate due to his association with World Team Tennis (WTT), but he won the Australian Open, which began in late December 1973 and concluded on January 1, 1974, defeating Phil Dent in four sets, and beat Ken Rosewall in straight sets in the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open losing only 6 and 2 games, respectively, in those finals. His exclusion from the French Open denied him the opportunity to become the second male player of the Open Era, after Rod Laver, to win all four Major singles titles in a calendar year. He chose not to participate in the season-ending Masters Cup between the top eight players of the world and was not eligible for the World Championship Tennis (WCT) finals because he did not compete in the WCT's regular tournaments.

In the open era, Connors is one of only six men to win three or more Grand Slam singles titles in a calendar year. The others are: Rod Laver who won the Grand Slam in 1969; Mats Wilander won the Australian, French and US Open in 1988; Roger Federer won the Australian, Wimbledon and US Open in 2004, 2006 and 2007; Rafael Nadal won the French, Wimbledon, and US Open in 2010; and Novak Djokovic won the Australian, Wimbledon, and US Open in 2011 and 2015.

Connors reached the final of the US Open in five straight years from 1974 through 1978, winning three times with each win being on a different surface (1974 on grass, 1976 on clay and 1978 on hard). He reached the final of Wimbledon four out of five years during his peak (1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978). Despite not being allowed to play or choosing not to participate in the French Open from 1974 to 1978, he was still able to reach the semifinals four times in the later years of his career.

In 1975, Connors reached the finals of Wimbledon, the US Open and Australia, he but did not win any of them. He won nine of the tournaments he entered achieving an 82–8 record. While he achieved enough points to retain the ATP No. 1 ranking the entire year, most tennis authorities, including the ATP, named Arthur Ashe, who defeated Connors at Wimbledon, as the Player of the Year. He once again did not participate in the Masters Cup or the WCT Finals.

In 1976, Connors captured the US Open once again (defeating Björn Borg) while losing in the quarter-finals at Wimbledon. While winning 12 events, including the U.S. Pro Indoor in Philadelphia, Palm Springs and Las Vegas, he achieved a record of 90–8 and defeated Borg all four times they played. He was ranked No. 1 by the ATP for the entire year and was named the player of the year by most tennis sources, but not by the ATP, which named Björn Borg as its player of the year.

In 1977, Connors lost in the Wimbledon finals to Borg and in the US Open finals to Guillermo Vilas, but Connors captured both the Masters, beating Borg, and the WCT Finals. While holding onto the ATP No. 1 ranking, the ATP and most tennis authorities ranked Borg or Vilas No. 1 with Connors rated as No. 3.

In 1978, Borg defeated Connors in the Wimbledon final, but Connors defeated Borg at the US Open plus won the U.S. Pro Indoor. While he retained the ATP No. 1 ranking at the end of the year, the ATP and most tennis authorities rated Borg as the player of the year.

Connors reached the ATP world No. 1 ranking on July 29, 1974 and held it for 160 consecutive weeks, a record until it was surpassed by Roger Federer on February 26, 2007. He was the ATP year-end no. 1 player from 1974 through 1978 and held the No. 1 ranking for a total of 268 weeks during his career.

In 1979 through 1981, Connors generally reached the semi-finals of the three top Grand Slam events and the Masters each year, but he did win the WCT Finals in 1980. He was generally ranked third in the world those years.

In 1982 Connors experienced a resurgence as he defeated John McEnroe to win Wimbledon and Ivan Lendl to win the US Open after which he reclaimed the ATP No. 1 ranking. He also reached the semi-final of the Masters Cup and won 5 other tournaments. After trading the No. 1 ranking with back and forth with McEnroe, he finished the year ranked No. 2, but he was named player of the year by the ATP and most other authorities due to his victories at Wimbledon and the US Open.

In 1983 Connors, McEnroe and Lendl traded the No. 1 ranking several times with Connors winning the US Open for a record fifth time and finishing the year as the No. 3 ranked player.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Not in terms of overall longevity and dominance, but in terms of peak performances he could and did

True - his peak was just as high as Federer's, especially on fast surfaces.

(PS. I don't know if you understand the irony, but I'm replying to you more often now, because you told me not to. Simply because I found it really funny that you demanded I stop replying to you, when all I said was that Sampras was the same level as Gonzales. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Octorok!)
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
Funny cause, if there's one thing that always puzzled me, it's probably the opposite question...why is Sampras constantly underrated and unappreciated around here? I would even ask the same question about Agassi. No love for the 90's around here.

Even if top 3 have surpassed most of his records, Pete will always be one of the greatest of all time in my head and he will always be the best player of his generation. His style of play to me was one of the most entertaining one to watch with that great serve and the volley that followed most of the time which we rarely see nowadays. I also like his calm/classy personality but I understand a lot of fans didn't, which is fair enough, to each it's own. The court conditions/surfaces were different back in the 90's, so it was hard for a player to consistently perform well on all surfaces compared to today, yet even if his style was more suited to fast courts, Pete was still the most consistent of them all for many years. People might say that the top 3 are more "complete" players than Sampras and have won more big titles and shown much more consistency for extended period of times, I'm not going to debate on the stats because on paper, it's true but when you look deeper than the "numbers" and take the context into account, the different court conditions, technology make any comparison worthless. If all courts were homogenized to play like fast courts for 10+ years, one could say Pete would've been able to dominate even more then he did back then much like the top 3 have on the slow courts of today that's adapted to suit their game.
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Although I don't give much value to this GOAT business but I will play along.
I just read about Connors career in detail for the 2nd time and it feels like that the 8 slams he has to his name don't do him justice.

He played the AO only twice in his life, winning once and reaching the finals in the other. The AO was played on grass back then in 1974-75.

He skipped or wasn't allowed to play the French Open in his 5 peak years(1974-1978).
He won USO on grass(1), clay(1) and hard(3).

Winning the USO on clay can be considered an equivalent of winning the French, can it not?
Connors won Wimbledon twice.
So he has 3 Hard Court, 4 Grass court and 1 Clay Court slams.
Seems like a pretty balanced resume to me considering what was the surfaced distribution back then.

His five USO came against Ken Rosewall(on grass), Bjorn Borg(CLAY and hard) and Ivan Lendl(hard and hard).
His Wimbledon victories were against Ken Rosewall and John McEnroe.
He made 4 out of 5 Wimbledon finals between 1974-1978.
His AO victory was against some dude named Phil Dent but other times he had great competition in his slam wins.

He made 12 consecutive Semifinals at the USO.
He made 4 Semifinals at the French despite skipping it throughout his peak years.

He has 5 consecutive years as YE#1.
12 consecutive years in the top 3. He stands alone by far.
He is not far from Sampras(286) in total weeks at #1 with 268 of his own.
He has 160 consecutive weeks at the top, only second to Roger, despite skipping the FO and many AO through his peak years.

He also didn't play a shït load of Masters Cup and WCT finals back in his peak years.

Everyone knows about his longevity and resilience.
Except the slam record he has everything equally good as Sampras or better despite having competition ranging from old Laver, Ashe, Newcombe and Rosewall to Borg and Vilas to McEnroe to Lendl.

I think all things considered and with me not being a "SLAM COUNT ABOVE ALL" guy I think Connors does have a case to be as great as Sampras if not greater.

giphy.gif


Even in the "Open Era" things have changed dramatically which really makes the GOAT debate how should I say it :unsure: Stupid.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Although I don't give much value to this GOAT business but I will play along.
I just read about Connors career in detail for the 2nd time and it feels like that the 8 slams he has to his name don't do him justice.

He played the AO only twice in his life, winning once and reaching the finals in the other. The AO was played on grass back then in 1974-75.

He skipped or wasn't allowed to play the French Open in his 5 peak years(1974-1978).
He won USO on grass(1), clay(1) and hard(3).

Winning the USO on clay can be considered an equivalent of winning the French, can it not?
Connors won Wimbledon twice.
So he has 3 Hard Court, 4 Grass court and 1 Clay Court slams.
Seems like a pretty balanced resume to me considering what was the surfaced distribution back then.

His five USO came against Ken Rosewall(on grass), Bjorn Borg(CLAY and hard) and Ivan Lendl(hard and hard).
His Wimbledon victories were against Ken Rosewall and John McEnroe.
He made 4 out of 5 Wimbledon finals between 1974-1978.
His AO victory was against some dude named Phil Dent but other times he had great competition in his slam wins.

He made 12 consecutive Semifinals at the USO.
He made 4 Semifinals at the French despite skipping it throughout his peak years.

He has 5 consecutive years as YE#1.
12 consecutive years in the top 3. He stands alone by far.
He is not far from Sampras(286) in total weeks at #1 with 268 of his own.
He has 160 consecutive weeks at the top, only second to Roger, despite skipping the FO and many AO through his peak years.

He also didn't play a shït load of Masters Cup and WCT finals back in his peak years.

Everyone knows about his longevity and resilience.
Except the slam record he has everything equally good as Sampras or better despite having competition ranging from old Laver, Ashe, Newcombe and Rosewall to Borg and Vilas to McEnroe to Lendl.

I think all things considered and with me not being a "SLAM COUNT ABOVE ALL" guy I think Connors does have a case to be as great as Sampras if not greater.

Connors had supreme prolific consistency and longevity for sure, still holding some OE records in that regard such as # of official titles won and # of official matches played and the biggest gap between first and last tour level match won (1971-1995), and his USO stats are still the best.

His biggest weakness though is lesser peak level compared to other greats of similar and better stature. As we know, the serve is the most important shot in tennis (off clay) and Connors had a really feeble serve for most of his career. It speaks to the sheer quality of the rest of his game that he was able to achieve so much with that weak serve of his, but hurts him against JMac, Lendl, Borg, Sampras etc whose peak service game gives them a clear advantage.

On clay, the issue was not the serve but hitting style since Connors liked to hit flat and clay favours topspin, so he'd mostly beat those who struggled on clay like Sampras and McEnroe, but lose to Borg and Lendl and Wilander and I think Fedovic too though fairly close.

So, for example, I can't possibly consider Connors close to Sampras despite overall stats when Sampras not only leads the crucial slam count by a lot, but would clearly to me dominate Connors at his best so I don't see Connors taking many titles from Sampras if they were contemporaries.
 

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
Source for that. Pretty sure the balls were lighter, since they were for every other slam
Source for that? When did you start playing tennis? 2010? Each slam may use a different brand of ball but the specs for them are still the same as per the ITF specs.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
We were in agreement till here.
But..

Would you like to elaborate a bit on this?

I think guys like Agassi and Djokovic have a much higher impact on the modern game than Sampras.
For all the up and comers today and even most players on tour Novak is the template of how to play tennis.
Everyone tries to play like him because for the modern game and surfaces he is the most technically sound player.

Federer, Sampras and Nadal took tennis to the masses but changing the modern game should be attributed to players who play the modern game unlike Federer and Sampras who have a mixed style of modern and classical tennis.
Sampras is the biggest single reason why we have courts that someone like Djokovic thrives on. Organisers shat themselves trying to work out how to stop him winning.
 

Heuristic

Hall of Fame
Each slam may use a different brand of ball but the specs for them are still the same as per the ITF specs.

That wasn't what I was referring to but the racket sound is completely different at Wimbledon than US Open. In no way do they use the same spec balls. Wimbledon balls are heavier.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
are you kidding? you can't handle more

you probably don't even know when Agassi was a "meth head" at all

I stopped reading your comment after what you said about Agassi, only to realize that you actually called some players 80s relicts and others a handful of slam winners lol

I am like how many slam winners have there even been for the past 15 YEARS??? LOL
Fewer in the past 15 years.

Mostly cause they stopped handing out Grand Slams to dudes like Gomez, Korda and Krajicek lol.
 
Top