something fed can't handle.....the pete sampras st. vincent ps 85 to 14 grand slams!

Young Pete · Jul 13, 2007

i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

only sampras can handle such a racquet. SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

InvisibleSoul · Jul 13, 2007

Not you or anyone else is going to be able to prove it, so the point is moot.

drakulie · Jul 13, 2007

As InvisibleSoul pointed out, you can't prove it. Additionally, he used an 85 (leaded up) to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Bye, bye.

Young Pete · Jul 13, 2007

drakulie said:
As InvisibleSoul pointed out, you can't prove it. Additionally, he used an 85 (leaded up) to beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Bye, bye.

that waz just once and it was close, and didn't henman spank fed after that win. what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

lolsmash · Jul 13, 2007

And i bet Sampras can't win 11 slams with whatever racket Federer is using now. You think he can? Prove it.

laurie · Jul 13, 2007

Don't you chaps get fed up of silly schoolboy threads?

pow · Jul 13, 2007

Young Pete said:
i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

I'd like to see Sampras try to play with the APD. lol

CyBorg · Jul 13, 2007

Could Pete win 14 majors with a woodie? Consult your illegal drugs to find out.

Deleted member 3771 · Jul 13, 2007

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

TheHuntor · Jul 13, 2007

laurie said:
Don't you chaps get fed up of silly schoolboy threads?

ha nice pun.

Young Pete · Jul 13, 2007

TheNatural said:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

GREAT POINT. they (fed fans) refuse to answer that question.

pro_staff · Jul 13, 2007

The racket itself does not matter. Sampras played with whatever he played best with and Federer plays with whatever he plays best with.

Young Pete · Jul 13, 2007

my point is sampras had to have superior talent to play with such a demanding racquet that even fed does not play with anymore. that my friends is what its all about.

pro_staff said:
The racket itself does not matter. Sampras played with whatever he played best with and Federer plays with whatever he plays best with.

Richie Rich · Jul 13, 2007

TheNatural said:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many titles Federer won with the ps 85?

probably around 7. but what do i know.

Chang · Jul 13, 2007

It's not the racquet. It's how you use it. Any decent racquet used to its potential can be a very powerful weapon.

drakulie · Jul 13, 2007

Young Pete said:
what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

How many of those are french open victories? Or better yet, how many times did he reach the final there with the 85??

NadalForever · Jul 13, 2007

Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

prosealster · Jul 13, 2007

Different raquet suits different style... that StV is demanding for some, but not for others...it was well suited to Pete's strokes and serve... he would have less success if he didnt lead up or use a 'less demanding' racquet like an APD...he would have won 0 slams..

prosealster · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

great post...you just showed us that this is a no brainer....S&V does take longer to mature.. hence you dont see it at kiddies level, which I imagine thats the level you are in... but once you get pass that..it's a very successful strategy...trust me... Given your example... Goran won 1 slam by S&V and Fed won 0...so does that mean he is greater than Fed???

slice bh compliment · Jul 13, 2007

I do not think Pete played with a certain racquet because of the fact that it was demanding...or despite the fact that it was demanding.

Wilson Pro Staff....a very powerful, asskicking frame. Good for you, Pete.

I think he played with it because he felt most excellent with it. It was not some liability or disadvantage or handicap or anything. In fact, it was an asset for him. Why else would he play with it?

VGP · Jul 13, 2007

Young Pete said:
that waz just once and it was close, and didn't henman spank fed after that win. what i really mean is 14 grand slams with a ps 85!!!

I think it's funny that Henman beating ("spanking") Federer after the Sampras match is the immediate follow-up. It can be used several ways.

- Federer was young and couldn't keep it up
- Federer got beat by a serve and volleyer
- Federer's not a pure serve and volleyer
- It was the old grass
- It was the old balls

....on and on.

The fact is that Federer suffered a groin injury during practice before the Henman match. Who knows what would have happened, especially with Sampras out of the draw.

In a way, I'm glad that Federer lost if not for being able to witness the Ivanisevic-Rafter final. A 128th ranked wild-card winning the title......priceless.

isuk@tennis · Jul 13, 2007

slice bh compliment said:
I do not think Pete played with a certain racquet because of the fact that it was demanding...or despite the fact that it was demanding.

Wilson Pro Staff....a very powerful, asskicking frame. Good for you, Pete.

I think he played with it because he felt most excellent with it. It was not some liability or disadvantage or handicap or anything. In fact, it was an asset for him. Why else would he play with it?

seriously right?

there is a reason why he refused to play with any other frame throughout his career. it's not so it's harder for him to win but for him to continue to be able to win.

dave333 · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

I guess nadal is an infant.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 13, 2007

Do they come naturally?

Another excellent thread...

poplar · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

once again it shows that federer hater/nadal lover camp has a lot of sampras fans. but when u try to downplay federer, you downplay nadal ever more.

federer-all courter with ps90

nadal - baseliner with big racquet

poplar · Jul 13, 2007

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN said:
Another excellent thread...

you'll never hear the end of it as federer is approaching pete's record slam titles.

quest01 · Jul 13, 2007

This is why Pistol Pete never won Roland Garros

Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Zimbo · Jul 13, 2007

Young Pete said:
my point is sampras had to have superior talent to play with such a demanding racquet that even fed does not play with anymore. that my friends is what its all about.

I see your point but if Pete was playing now he wouldn't be using a PS 85.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 13, 2007

poplar said:
you'll never hear the end of it as federer is approaching pete's record slam titles.

Let me see, I have seen the threads where his slams were not an actual slam because he received a walkover; there is no competition in his era, his inability to hit with a ps 85.

What’s next?

Federer was/is on steroids?

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 13, 2007

quest01 said:
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head side. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

That is a bold statement...

Eviscerator · Jul 13, 2007

Is it amazing that Pete accomplished so much with his racquet? The answer is yes, but it is no more amazing than Connors winning all those tourneys with a tiny head T-2000, or Laver winning two Grand Slams with wood. Today Roger plays with an unforgiving racquet that many other pros would have trouble adjusting to, so it shows his immense talent as well.

Hot Sauce · Jul 13, 2007

This is a thread where all the Nadal trolls and Sampras trolls come to form a coalition to troll against Federer. How very sad indeed.

NadalForever · Jul 13, 2007

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN said:
Let me see, I have seen the threads where his slams were not an actual slam because he received a walkover; there is no competition in his era, his inability to hit with a ps 85.

What’s next?

Federer was/is on steroids?

Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

Young Pete · Jul 13, 2007

quest01 said:
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

an even better point. pete could have won 20-25 grand slams if he ditched the ps 85 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO PETE!!!!!YOU ARE THE BEST!!!!!!!!!!

drakulie · Jul 13, 2007

quest01 said:
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Tell that to Jim Courier, Pierce, Evert who all won it with the same frame. he didn't win the French because his game was not built for baseline bashing.

drakulie · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

.... and since nadal beat a "loser like Fed" on the way to his 3 FO victories those shouldn't count either.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

I am sure Federer agree with you 1000%.....:roll:

Will you be saying the same thing if Nadal encounters the same thing?

NadalForever · Jul 13, 2007

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN said:
I am sure Federer agree with you 1000%.....:roll:

Will you be saying the same thing if Nadal encounters the same thing?

Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 13, 2007

Alright, to each his own...

End of discussion.

Hot Sauce · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Well last time I checked you gotta play 7 matches to win a slam. So Federer's Wimbledon win this year as well as his 2004 US Open wins definitely do not count. In fact I should stop even using the word win when refering to those slams. We should all be saying Federer's participation in those slams does not count.

Last time anyone checked, Nadal has never won Wimbledon, Australian Open, or US Open and he is ranked 2nd, next to yours truly, Mr. Federer. Please do us all a favor and spare your completely biased trolling, and leave these forums permanently. Thanks.

Eviscerator · Jul 13, 2007

NadalForever said:
Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.

:roll:

tHotGates · Jul 14, 2007

quest01 said:
Pistol Pete would have won more majors if he ditched the ps 85 for a larger head size. Not just this but if Pete used a larger head size he may have won at least 1 French Open.

Actually, Pete has made recent comments to that effect ... almost lamenting of what could have been if he had instead used a larger head size for the FO.

War Safin! · Jul 14, 2007

Young Pete said:
i cannot believe sampras can swing a st. vincent to 14 grand slams the ps 85 sv is so small, heavy, powerless, and unforgiving thats something fed cannot do i guarantee it.

only sampras can handle such a racquet. SIMPLY AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You forget Sampras has a very flexible arm.
Strength is secondary.

kabob · Jul 14, 2007

NadalForever said:
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

You obviously weren't watching very closely. Federer won his first Wimbledon playing mostly serve & volley.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN · Jul 14, 2007

NadalForever said:
Sampras won 14 slams by serve and volley. Federer won 0 slams by serve and volley. Playing tennis from back of the court is for kids and is extremely easy to do. I can hit forehand and backand winners easily from back of the court but no matter how hard I try in playing serve and volley I immediately loose. It puzzles me how Sampras was able to accomplish so much by playing serve and volley his whole career. Just ask Henman, no matter how hard he tries he just can't reach the slam final.

Ummm,

What is your ATP ranking?

drakulie · Jul 14, 2007

NadalForever said:
Definitely. If Nadal has a walkover in the next slam that he wins then I will definitely not count that as a win. Slams are supposed to be an endurance test and being able to survive playing 7 matches. Anything playing less then 7 matches should not be counted.

I agree. Let's not forget slams are also "supposed to be" 5 sets per match. So anything less then playing 35 sets should not be counted. Additionally, every set has to go to a tie break in order to be counted. :roll:

rwn · Jul 16, 2007

kabob said:
You obviously weren't watching very closely. Federer won his first Wimbledon playing mostly serve & volley.

He hasn't even watched Sampras closely. Sampras won 4 US Opens and 2 Australian Opens playing from the baseline. Peak Sampras (93-97) only served & volleyed on superfast grass and superfast carpet courts.
Sampras wouldn't serve & volley in the current slow conditions IMO.

something fed can't handle.....the pete sampras st. vincent ps 85 to 14 grand slams!

Professional

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Rookie

laurie

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

Deleted member 3771

Guest

New User

Professional

Semi-Pro

Professional

Legend

Rookie

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Professional

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

poplar

Guest

poplar

Guest

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Legend

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Rookie

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Similar threads