Federer would've stood no chance in Pete's era, and Pete would've stood no chance in Federer's era.This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts. To me that idea is a great compliment to both players, not a knock on either of them.
What say you?
First part is true, second part is not. We award you half marks.Federer would've stood no chance in Pete's era, and Pete would've stood no chance in Federer's era.
Sorry, I forgot we're no longer in Federer's era. Haven't been for a few years now.First part is true, second part is not. We award you half marks.
Pete would only have struggled with Baghdatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Starace, Srichaphan from Fed's era. He'd handle everyone else. Oh, wait...Sorry, I forgot we're no longer in Federer's era. Haven't been for a few years now.
sampras is lendl 2.0
so federer would be lendl 3.0
Naah, sampras was mentally stronger.This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts. To me that idea is a great compliment to both players, not a knock on either of them.
What say you?
No, Lendl's serve and volley is nowhere near Sampras or Federer.
It's like this: Sampras -> Federer; Borg -> Nadal; Agassi -> Djokovic; and Lendl -> Murray
First part is true, second part is not. We award you half marks.
Disagree. That doesn't pay Nadal and Djoker enough respect. Fed had to compete against two, TWO guys that are going to have 20+ slams EACH, getting 20 himself. That's just ridiculous.Naah, sampras was mentally stronger.
If federer was same, he'd have sealed the GOAT dispute a long time ago by putting so much distance between himself and the Djokodal.
Fed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.This may sound crazy, but I have always viewed Fed as a 2.0 version of Sampras, almost like an evolution of sorts.
What say you?
On whole he is an improvement, in my opinion. Serve is only one aspect. One could say Isner is an improvement over Pete's serve, but how many slams does he have? Don't get me wrong. Pete was my guy post-Lendl. I couldn't stand Agassi. When I say Fed is an improved version of Pete that is no knock on Pete. Anyways, we all have opinions. No worries.Fed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.
bwahahahahaha he's only clearly better on clayFed didn't do anything to evolve Pete's serve, he always has been the vastly inferior server to Pete in velocity, clutchness and placement. Fed is the far better player across all surfaces than Pete with the monumentally greater career. But he'll never touch the Sampras serve.
Too nihilisticFederer would've stood no chance in Pete's era, and Pete would've stood no chance in Federer's era.
First part is true, second part is not. We award you half marks.
Did you happen to miss his 6 AO titles? Sampras beat such heavyweights like Muster or Moya there for his titles, lost whenever Agassi decided he wanted to play. Fed not only dominated the AO in his prime but also came through three five setters to win the title again at the age of 36. There's no comparison on hard court overall except in your head.bwahahahahaha he's only clearly better on clay
Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;Did you happen to miss his 6 AO titles? Sampras beat such heavyweights like Muster or Moya there for his titles, lost whenever Agassi decided he wanted to play. Fed not only dominated the AO in his prime but also came through three five setters to win the title again at the age of 36. There's no comparison on hard court overall except in your head.
Like the T1000 glitching when it sees John Connor and shutting down lolVersion 2.0 manufacturer defect of being unable to convert BP/MPs
Pete has:I am sorry but from whatever I have seen of Pete, which must be quite less than what would have been sufficient, he looks really different than Federer.
Federer is quite close to being a complete player, the only relative weakness he has is his OHBH ,that too which becomes a liability only and only against Nadal. The guy in his heyday defended almost as well as best defenders on tours, and attacked from all over the court(but mostly baseline)
I am sorry I see Federer as an entirely different player in terms of capabilities. (Doesn't resonate with effectiveness, just options available)
Sampras wasn't nowhere as complete,he just did those things he could do so so well and others to a decent level that nobody came close. Meanwhile Federer, almost in all areas ,is elite or near elite.
Also, I love how people here call out Federer for a weak topspin BH, when in whichever match I have watched of Sampras, he just rolls the ball back.
Rafael would absolutely annihilate that BH on clay.
Never was really big on Courier's game to be honest.Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;
Number of AO titles won by competition:
Federer: Baghdatis+exhausted Nadal+exhausted Safin+Gonzalez+Roddick+Murray+Cilic=>2
PETE: Courier=>2
Fed has longevity over Pete, that's it, and clearly due to changes in medicine, tech AND the Homogenization that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the money grubbing times.
I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".Never was really big on Courier's game to be honest.
Big forehand.
Once the tour solved him he was mostly done at the top.
Great analyst and commentator tho.
Pete would only have struggled with Baghdatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Starace, Srichaphan from Fed's era. He'd handle everyone else. Oh, wait...
Never ceases to amaze me how Fedfans act like 4-5 is demolition while waving their hands at 16-24...which was 10-23 prior to Fed's 35th birthdayYou should probably check Pete's record against Hewitt, particulary after Hewitt's 19th birthday
I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".
Not to mention Jim was the youngest man in history to reach all 4 major finals!
Only seen him do some commentary at the USO where I thought he was great.You can disagree about Courier's quality as a player, but I think we can agree he's a terrible commentator.
Never ceases to amaze me how Fedfans act like 4-5 is demolition while waving their hands at 16-24...which was 10-23 prior to Fed's 35th birthday
Only seen him do some commentary at the USO where I thought he was great.
Of course. 3 of those meetings happened during the worst 2 year stretch of his career.Nice deflection. So does that mean Pete didn't struggle against Hewitt after Hewitt turned 19?
Sampras beat Courier there twice. The same Courier who beat Edberg there 3 times and took Agassi 5 in '96. The same Courier with twice as many AO titles as Federer's AO master Nadal. Federer's 2017 title is extraordinary but you mocking Pete's titles is strange given Fed's titles won over exhausted Safin, Gonzalez, Roddick, Murray, Cilic and the singular meme of his competition, Baghdatis, all of whom combined have ONE AO title. Throw in exhausted Nadal, and that's 2. So combining most of Federer's AO competition's haul gets to as many AO titles as ONE guy Pete demolished twice on the way to finals. TLDR;
Number of AO titles won by competition:
Federer: Baghdatis+exhausted Nadal+exhausted Safin+Gonzalez+Roddick+Murray+Cilic=>2
PETE: Courier=>2
HELL let's throw in Wawrinka for Feddy as well. Let's also give PETE Kafelnikov.
Federer: Baghdatis&friends+Wawrinka=> 3
PETE: Courier+Kafelnikov=>3
Fed has longevity over Pete, that's it, and clearly due to changes in medicine, tech AND the Homogenization that have nothing to do with talent and everything to do with the money grubbing times.
Did Fed struggle with Nadal prior to turning 35?
Sampras beat Kafelnikov at the AO in '94, the year he won the title, in an epic 5 setter that went 9-7 in the fifth. He also beat Courier in that same run, who was actually the defending champion.Oh yeah, exhausted Nadal. Nice disclaimer to somehow disqualify the player with far more AO titles. You can't PETE your way out of this. Sorry. It's not about a title or two more, Fed has three times as many AOs as Sampras. There's simply no comparison. Oh, and Kafelnikov is no match for Murray and even an 'exhausted Nadal' or 'exhausted Safin' are tougher opponents than him.
Oh, and Sampras never beat Kafelnikov in his title runs. He also never beat Courier before 94 at AO so if you want to go exhausted Nadal, I will go post-prime washed up Jimmy.
Sampras beat Kafelnikov at the AO in '94, the year he won the title, in an epic 5 setter that went 9-7 in the fifth. He also beat Courier in that same run, who was actually the defending champion.
I answered youDon't know if you've ever been asked this, but did Pete struggle with Hewitt after Hewitt turned 19?
Sampras beat Kafelnikov at the AO in '94, the year he won the title, in an epic 5 setter that went 9-7 in the fifth. He also beat Courier in that same run, who was actually the defending champion.
So nothing more to say in other words.Yes, epic fifth setter against a rookie who had never shown good results before that year. This was hardly the Kafelnikov who would go on to win slams. And as for Courier, yes, he was the defending champion but no, he was far off his peak already. You are one to talk about excuses when you desperately try to invalidate as epic a performance as AO 2017. How deep does your hate run? lol, go find some better purpose in your life. That's what your patron saint Jordan Peterson tells you all, in case you noticed.
Also, I love how people here call out Federer for a weak topspin BH, when in whichever match I have watched of Sampras, he just rolls the ball back.
Rafael would absolutely annihilate that BH on clay
So nothing more to say in other words.
Too late to act fair when you tried shamefully to disqualify it in the argument earlier. There's no slam run of Sampras on AO that remotely compares to 2017. It was his second worst slam all said and done, for whatever may have been the reasons. Nobody's saying Fed's better at USO and he is only marginally better, if that, at Wimbledon. But you're reaching too much if you try to argue Sampras is equal or better on AO. He's not. And if he was not interested etc etc, that's not Fed's fault. Fed showed up and won, time and time again.Also, Fed's 2017 AO Win is one of the most epic slam wins in the last 2-3 decades of tennis.
I only called Nadal exhausted after you mocked Pete's opponents. Prior to that I called Federer's run extraordinary.Oh God, what an original comeback, have been hearing that since the early 00s on the net.
Too late to act fair when you tried shamefully to disqualify it in the argument earlier. There's no slam run of Sampras on AO that remotely compares to 2017. It was his second worst slam all said and done, for whatever may have been the reasons. Nobody's saying Fed's better at USO and he is only marginally better, if that, at Wimbledon. But you're reaching too much if you try to argue Sampras is equal or better on AO. He's not. And if he was not interested etc etc, that's not Fed's fault. Fed showed up and won, time and time again.
I need to order that book.I disagree. His game was actually pretty hard to figure out, since most people made the mistake of going straight to his backhand, which he actually really liked and helped him get into a rhythm. The key was to get him out wide on the forehand and then expose his backhand because he'd be off balance and its technical weakness would be more exposed. Pete details this in his book "A Champion's Mind".
Not to mention Jim was the youngest man in history to reach all 4 major finals!
Apples and oranges. That kind of BH did the job back then. Combine that with such a potent FH as Sampras used to be able to hit with nat gut off an 85 sq inch. There's no saying how much better Sampras' serve and forehand would have been with poly. The potential is mindboggling. It's possible his IO forehand would have been too hot to handle for Nadal. We really don't know and can't say. That's why cross era comparisons are futile and only end up getting acrimonious as this one has.This actually is a point that I would really underline. I had watched Agassi Sampras USO, and Sampras rolled his topspin BH like 85% of the time.
He was saved by the fast surface and his serve dominance. I can't for the life of me imagine the massacre Nadal would cause on that side.
Nice try but you listed Fed's opponents and carefully avoided mentioning Nadal. I hadn't even posted yet on this topic at that time. Don't you think without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would have easily got to double digits at AO? I don't think Sampras fans of all people can dare attack Fed's competition because a large part of Sampras' success, as in the case of Graf, was simply him being so much better than the rest.I only called Nadal exhausted after you mocked Pete's opponents. Prior to that I called Federer's run extraordinary.
False, I specifically mentioned Nadal and called the run extraordinary.Nice try but you listed Fed's opponents and carefully avoided mentioning Nadal. I hadn't even posted yet on this topic at that time. Don't you think without Nadal and Djokovic, Fed would have easily got to double digits at AO? I don't think Sampras fans of all people can dare attack Fed's competition because a large part of Sampras' success, as in the case of Graf, was simply him being so much better than the rest.
I answered you
Never ceases to amaze me how Fedfans act like 4-5 is demolition while waving their hands at 16-24...which was 10-23 prior to Fed's 35th birthday
Did Fed struggle with Nadal prior to turning 35?
False, I specifically mentioned Nadal and called the run extraordinary.
Pete would only have struggled with Baghdatis, Philippousis, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Starace, Srichaphan from Fed's era. He'd handle everyone else. Oh, wait...
I think Fedfans are the last ones who should bring up competition lol. I'll leave it at that.
Pete has:
1- GOAT contending serve
2 - ATG forehand
3 - ATG volleys
4 - ATG movement
5 - ATG court sense
6 - GOAT contending clutch
Fed has:
1 - GOAT contending forehand
2 - ATG movement
3 - ATG court sense
4 - ATG serve (being VERY generous here)
Pete's game was more complete, and had far more "elite level" aspects to it than Fed's. Federer having a more complete baseline game doesn't make him a more complete player, it makes him a better baseliner because that's his game, just like Edberg being a FAR superior serve and volleyer to Fed doesn't make him a more complete player either.
Nadal was not a main rival of Fed on his favored surfaces during his winningest years. He played Fed a grand total of twice on either grass or hard during Fed's golden years of 03-07. Compare that to Roddick who played him 6 times on his favored surfaces. Even if we factor in clay, Nadal played Fed 5 times in that period.You lie.
And I didn't before you did. Not like your boy didn't benefit from the lack of heavyweights in prime form. Meth-gassi was his best opponent, er, opposed to Nadal or Djokovic? Where's the competition?