Sampras/Fed Forehands Compared

gopokes · Jul 6, 2009

How were these two eastern forehands similar? I watched an old Davis Cup match with Pete and his forehand was pretty wicked. In terms of mechanics, Pete's appeared to be more traditional with a slightly more conservative grip than Fed, but there are times when Fed's stroke has that same character. Can someone weigh-in on comparing the mechanics of these two strokes beyond their stylistic nuances?
GP

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

fairly similar: grip, semi-open stance, non-loopy take-back. although, follow through (over the shoulder vs across the chest), and individual aesthetics were different.

stormholloway · Jul 8, 2009

I think the grip is about the only real similarity they share. Pete's forehand is probably best compared to Lendl's.

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

ah, yes. Lendl. similar flow.

coloskier · Jul 8, 2009

It still amazes me that people forget that Sampras had the most feared forehand of his era. All they ever talk about is his serve and volley.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

coloskier said:
It still amazes me that people forget that Sampras had the most feared forehand of his era. All they ever talk about is his serve and volley.

Because half the posters here never saw him play and are obsessed with clay results.

Cenc · Jul 8, 2009

well grip similar
motion not that much but there are similarities

sampras had better running forehand
fed has better attacking forehand and better angles while sampras' one was special because he could win a winner from "nowhere", you could never know when he was gonna attack and when just keep the rally

feds one is better for clay
sampras' forehand is better for grass and carpet

overall 2 amazing forehands
just depends who likes what

380pistol · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
coloskier said:

It still amazes me that people forget that Sampras had the most feared forehand of his era. All they ever talk about is his serve and volley.

Click to expand...

Because half the posters here never saw him play and are obsessed with clay results.

So true. It's not that his groundstrokes weren't cood, it's that the type of groundstrokes weren't conducive to clay.

esc226 · Jul 8, 2009

I think Fed has the best inside out forehand I've ever seen. Every time he runs around it the point is over. The angle he gets is crazy especially the one to the backhand corner.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

380pistol said:
So true. It's not that his groundstrokes weren't cood, it's that the type of groundstrokes weren't conducive to clay.

I've seen someone post the following and I am paraphrasing here " Of course Sampras couldn't play from the baseline, look at his results on clay."

One of the dumber things I've ever read here. On hard courts, which is what Pete and almost all American players grow up on, Pete could play with anyone from the back court.

Just because you are born in South America and grind all day on clay doesn't mean they are the only good baseliners. Many of the clay court specialist in the 90's did NOTHING on any other surface and could not beat a guy like Pete on hard courts to save their life even if Pete stayed in the back court.

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

380pistol said:
So true. It's not that his groundstrokes weren't cood, it's that the type of groundstrokes weren't conducive to clay.

I would argue that he did have the groundstrokes conducive for any surface -- even clay. One should look at Soderling. Heck, Noah, McEnroe, and Edberg made it to the finals with serve and volley; Noah won while McEnroe (2 set lead) and Edberg (2 set to 1 lead) couldn't close the deal. These guys weren't known for having intimidating ground strokes.

He's won every clay event level except for Roland Garros: Davis Cup, Masters', and Tour 250. I don't know how much Thalassemia played a role in Sampras' fitness on clay. Pete would be the one to know; however, I don't believe he is the sort of person to use that as an excuse.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

leonidas1982 said:
I would argue that he did have the groundstrokes conducive for any surface -- even clay. One should look at Soderling. Heck, Noah, McEnroe, and Edberg made it to the finals with serve and volley; Noah won while McEnroe (2 set lead) and Edberg (2 set to 1 lead) couldn't close the deal. These guys weren't known for having intimidating ground strokes.

He's won every clay event level except for Roland Garros: Davis Cup, Masters', and Tour 250. I don't know how much TP played a role in Sampras' fitness on clay. Pete would be the one to know; however, I don't believe he is the sort of person to use that as an excuse.

Chang, Courier, Agassi - three Americans who broke through and won the French. That does hurt Pete because they grew up on the same hardcourts and managed to beat the dirtballers in Paris.

MichaelChang · Jul 8, 2009

A few differences I can think of:

Federer more often hits with straight-arm, while Sampras is more double-bented forehand.

Federer can hit with more top-spin, while Sampras is more flat and more focused on court penetration.

Sampras's running CC forehand is probably one of the most famous shot in his era.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

leonidas1982 said:
I would argue that he did have the groundstrokes conducive for any surface -- even clay. One should look at Soderling. Heck, Noah, McEnroe, and Edberg made it to the finals with serve and volley; Noah won while McEnroe (2 set lead) and Edberg (2 set to 1 lead) couldn't close the deal. These guys weren't known for having intimidating ground strokes.

He's won every clay event level except for Roland Garros: Davis Cup, Masters', and Tour 250. I don't know how much TP played a role in Sampras' fitness on clay. Pete would be the one to know; however, I don't believe he is the sort of person to use that as an excuse.

I saw Edberg make fools out of some dirtballers on red clay.

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

Precisely, I don't buy the argument one can't serve and volley on the dirt.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

leonidas1982 said:
Precisely, I don't buy the argument one can't serve and volley on the dirt.

? Edberg and McEnroe are the two greatest Serve and Volley players in the last 30 years and both failed to win the French Open and made one final apiece. They also both played TRUE serve and volley and came in on both serves. Where is the evidence that you can serve and volley your way to glory at the French?

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
? Edberg and McEnroe are the two greatest Serve and Volley players in the last 30 years and both failed to win the French Open and made one final apiece. They also both played TRUE serve and volley and came in on both serves. Where is the evidence that you can serve and volley your way to glory at the French?

Yannick Noah. I believe he dropped only one or two sets during the tournament.

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

leonidas1982 said:
Yannick Noah. I believe he dropped only one or two sets during the tournament.

Did he really serve and volley both serves that whole tourney?

Serve and Volleying your way to glory in Paris on both serves would be the accomplishment of a lifetime in men's tennis in this era.

380pistol · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
I've seen someone post the following and I am paraphrasing here " Of course Sampras couldn't play from the baseline, look at his results on clay."

One of the dumber things I've ever read here. On hard courts, which is what Pete and almost all American players grow up on, Pete could play with anyone from the back court.

Just because you are born in South America and grind all day on clay doesn't mean they are the only good baseliners. Many of the clay court specialist in the 90's did NOTHING on any other surface and could not beat a guy like Pete on hard courts to save their life even if Pete stayed in the back court.

Well said.

380pistol · Jul 8, 2009

leonidas1982 said:
I would argue that he did have the groundstrokes conducive for any surface -- even clay. One should look at Soderling. Heck, Noah, McEnroe, and Edberg made it to the finals with serve and volley; Noah won while McEnroe (2 set lead) and Edberg (2 set to 1 lead) couldn't close the deal. These guys weren't known for having intimidating ground strokes.

He's won every clay event level except for Roland Garros: Davis Cup, Masters', and Tour 250. I don't know how much Thalassemia played a role in Sampras' fitness on clay. Pete would be the one to know; however, I don't believe he is the sort of person to use that as an excuse.

Not that they weren't conducive to clay, but playing with an eastern grip, and a penchant for hiting flat isn't the best for clay, when the clay will blunt it, not take to it like other surfaces, while other are using semi western and western grips hitting damn near everything with top spin, and the clay is feeding that.

Soderling just got hot, so did Noah. Mac was tremendously gifted and Edberg wasn't bad at all. Sampras on any given day could play on clay and has beaten some fine claycourters. I'm not saying Sampras couldn't, his style wasn't the greatest fit for clay. It was excellent for hard, grass and carpet.

cknobman · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
Did he really serve and volley both serves that whole tourney?

Serve and Volleying your way to glory in Paris on both serves would be the accomplishment of a lifetime in men's tennis in this era.

Well I watched the final and he sure as heck did it the entire final.

Eviscerator · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
Because half the posters here never saw him play and are obsessed with clay results.

True

Can you imagine how they will feel when Federer has been retired for a while and the latest greatest player will be touted as the GOAT by young fans. Those who did not see Federer play will denigrate him as an old player from the past, and the todays fans will just read in disbelief.

What goes around comes around.:mrgreen:

Mashafun · Jul 8, 2009

;/ i'm wonderin' if you guys have other interests beside comparing federer/sampras/nadal. --.-- on n' on and those anoying threads like "federer is a GOAT" "10 reasons why fed's not a GOAT"

leonidas1982 · Jul 8, 2009

True, but he did get some impressive RPMs on his groundstrokes. I guess we'll have to differentiate between spin and trajectory (height the ball travels towards one's opponent).

Jchurch · Jul 8, 2009

I really like both players. Pete's forehand was an amazing weapon. Very powerful and he seemed to have near perfect angle selection when hitting the cross court running forehand. But if I had to take one, I would take Federer's just because ok how much spin he is able to put on the ball and also because to me, with the exception of the running forehand(possibly), it is better.

The-Champ · Jul 8, 2009

Pete's groundstrokes were good enough to rally with the best clay courters there were. The problem I think is that he didn't move too well on the surface, therefore the inconsistent results, but on a good day he could play with the best. Also, he is someone who strived to end points quickly and the slow surface didn't help his cause. I know, Pete got destroyed by kafelnikov in Paris, but Pete beat him in DC, in fact the whole russian team single handedly on clay. Thus, he may not be one of the best ever on the surface, far from it, but on a good day, he could hang with just about anyone.

just my two cents.

on fh.

Equally powerful but i'll take Roger's on this one because of consistency. Pete didn't have to use his fh too often...he had two major weapons that were basically enough to win him matches.

Datacipher · Jul 8, 2009

pmerk34 said:
I've seen someone post the following and I am paraphrasing here " Of course Sampras couldn't play from the baseline, look at his results on clay."

One of the dumber things I've ever read here. On hard courts, which is what Pete and almost all American players grow up on, Pete could play with anyone from the back court.
.

It's worse that that. Sampras COULD play on clay, ask Courier, ask Muster, ask Bruguera, ask Kafelnikov...he just couldn't string together matches consistently, and I believe this was in large part due to his thalassemia. He just couldn't afford to grind for 5 set matches on clay. When he did do it, it just meant that much less stamina in his next match....

If not for this condition, his chances of pulling off one french would have been significantly higher, but that is the way it goes....

pmerk34 · Jul 8, 2009

The-Champ said:
Pete's groundstrokes were good enough to rally with the best clay courters there were. The problem I think is that he didn't move too well on the surface, therefore the inconsistent results, but on a good day he could play with the best. Also, he is someone who strived to end points quickly and the slow surface didn't help his cause. I know, Pete got destroyed by kafelnikov in Paris, but Pete beat him in DC, in fact the whole russian team single handedly on clay. Thus, he may not be one of the best ever on the surface, far from it, but on a good day, he could hang with just about anyone.

just my two cents.

on fh.

Equally powerful but i'll take Roger's on this one because of consistency. Pete didn't have to use his fh too often...he had two major weapons that were basically enough to win him matches.

That Davis cup performance by Pete is one of the most dramatic awe inspiring things I've ever seen .

Azzurri · Jul 8, 2009

Cenc said:
well grip similar
motion not that much but there are similarities

sampras had better running forehand
fed has better attacking forehand and better angles while sampras' one was special because he could win a winner from "nowhere", you could never know when he was gonna attack and when just keep the rally

feds one is better for clay
sampras' forehand is better for grass and carpet

overall 2 amazing forehands
just depends who likes what

Cenc...no offense, but you never even watched Sampras play. You were 9 years old when he retired and still in diapers when he was in his prime. you note that Fed has a better attacking FH and he won points from nowhere..so did Sampras. In fact, Pete's FH was feared and everyone that watched the man play knows his FH was his bread and butter. you also make no sense regarding surfaces...no sense at all.

sorry Cenc...while I still think you base your conclusion on youtube, you are correct about Pete's FH.

Azzurri · Jul 8, 2009

esc226 said:
I think Fed has the best inside out forehand I've ever seen. Every time he runs around it the point is over. The angle he gets is crazy especially the one to the backhand corner.

Courier also had an incredible inside-out fh.

Azzurri · Jul 8, 2009

The-Champ said:
Pete's groundstrokes were good enough to rally with the best clay courters there were. The problem I think is that he didn't move too well on the surface, therefore the inconsistent results, but on a good day he could play with the best. Also, he is someone who strived to end points quickly and the slow surface didn't help his cause. I know, Pete got destroyed by kafelnikov in Paris, but Pete beat him in DC, in fact the whole russian team single handedly on clay. Thus, he may not be one of the best ever on the surface, far from it, but on a good day, he could hang with just about anyone.

just my two cents.

on fh.

Equally powerful but i'll take Roger's on this one because of consistency. Pete didn't have to use his fh too often...he had two major weapons that were basically enough to win him matches.

good post Champ..well stated.

vtmike · Jul 8, 2009

To simplify things IMO,

Federer forehand > Sampras forehand

Sampras serve > Federer serve

zagor · Jul 8, 2009

Azzurri said:
Cenc...no offense, but you never even watched Sampras play. You were 9 years old when he retired and still in diapers when he was in his prime. you note that Fed has a better attacking FH and he won points from nowhere..so did Sampras. In fact, Pete's FH was feared and everyone that watched the man play knows his FH was his bread and butter. you also make no sense regarding surfaces...no sense at all.

He actually said that Sampras's FH can win the point from anywhere which does make a lot of sense actually.I don't know about the surfaces,I think both players prefer the ball to stay low.

Anyway I'd take Fed's overall because of consistency and sick angles but Pete's CC running FH is amazing and his FH has more power than Fed's(although Fed can rip the ball off FH side as well).

BigServer1 · Jul 8, 2009

380pistol said:
So true. It's not that his groundstrokes weren't cood, it's that the type of groundstrokes weren't conducive to clay.

And even his strokes on clay were still good, his backhand just got really abused because of the bounce and his forehand didn't penetrate as well. They were still great, just not as great as they were on fast surfaces.

Sampras' running forehand was also the best I've ever seen, period.

UnbiasedTennisFan · Jul 8, 2009

So wait a minute. WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute.

Sampras had a better serve than Federer. I think even the biggest Federer nuthuggers would agree with that. It's not even close, really.

And now this thread is starting to reveal that Sampras's forehand was at least CLOSE to being as good as Federer's?

Yet Sampras isn't more talented than Federer? Federer is by far the most talented player in history?

How? How does this make sense if Sampras has two all-time great shots (serve and forehand) and Federer has only one (forehand)?

Cup8489 · Jul 8, 2009

UnbiasedTennisFan said:
So wait a minute. WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait a minute.

Sampras had a better serve than Federer. I think even the biggest Federer nuthuggers would agree with that. It's not even close, really.

And now this thread is starting to reveal that Sampras's forehand was at least CLOSE to being as good as Federer's?

Yet Sampras isn't more talented than Federer? Federer is by far the most talented player in history?

How? How does this make sense if Sampras has two all-time great shots (serve and forehand) and Federer has only one (forehand)?

you forget that federer's backhand is considerably better than sampras' backhand, especially when looking for angles.

pete had good volleys, but i'm not sure who i'd give it to in this category. pete had good putaways, but fed has come up with some pretty ridiculous shots of his own.

pete was a great mover, but fed is better still, and manages his stamina so he is able to stay on court for hours upon hours.

the general consensus is that, overall, federer is able to play at a higher level of proficiency throughout his whole game when compared to sampras. Agassi said it best, there's nowhere to get with Federer, nowhere you can attack and guarantee success, which wasn't the case with Pete.

UnbiasedTennisFan · Jul 8, 2009

Cup8489 said:
you forget that federer's backhand is considerably better than sampras' backhand, especially when looking for angles.

pete had good volleys, but i'm not sure who i'd give it to in this category. pete had good putaways, but fed has come up with some pretty ridiculous shots of his own.

pete was a great mover, but fed is better still, and manages his stamina so he is able to stay on court for hours upon hours.

the general consensus is that, overall, federer is able to play at a higher level of proficiency throughout his whole game when compared to sampras. Agassi said it best, there's nowhere to get with Federer, nowhere you can attack and guarantee success, which wasn't the case with Pete.

Sampras's backhand was way better than Federer's in every area.

Federer's backhand is an enormous weakness that players can and do attack and have major success with. The problem is now that they've figured this out, he's really improved his serve and it's tough to get in his service games.

And even if you get a lead, you have to be mentally and physically strong enough to finish, which most aren't. See Tomas Berdych at Australia, Tommy Haas and Juan Martin Del Potro at the French, and Andy Roddick at Wimbledon this year.

lordmanji · Jul 8, 2009

fed and sampras' forehands are pretty similar except for fed using a more western grip. its not surprising that they're similar given fed modeled his game off of pete. look at sampras' service motion i think around 2001 and earlier and the mechanics are pretty much the same. sampras also sliced a bunch backhand side tho fed uses the short backhand much more often and he can actually hit over it more consistently than fed. like i said, new and improved version.

380pistol · Jul 8, 2009

zagor said:
He actually said that Sampras's FH can win the point from anywhere which does make a lot of sense actually.I don't know about the surfaces,I think both players prefer the ball to stay low.

Anyway I'd take Fed's overall because of consistency and sick angles but Pete's CC running FH is amazing and his FH has more power than Fed's(although Fed can rip the ball off FH side as well).

Federer's forehand has variety and flexibilty, Pete's was powerful and penetrating. I tend to give Roger's the slight nod, but look at Sampras in 2002 US Open final for example when he started to hit reverse forehands for more consistency.

And yes Sampras canwin a point from the 3rd row with his forehand!!!!

Cesc Fabregas · Jul 9, 2009

Sampras had the most pentrating forehand I have ever seen (best running forehand as well) I mean from a completley neutral point in a ralley he could hit a winner or unreturnable shot. It was the best forehand of the 90's with Courier's a close second.

veritech · Jul 9, 2009

both forehands were the best of their generations. can't really choose one.

World Beater · Jul 9, 2009

federer's fh is a different type of shot to pete.

pete's fh was like a shotgun. he would usually go for the penetrating fh and would try to win the point quickly.

federer uses his fh to run his opponents ragged and uses the spin to basically outmaneuver his opponents. pete would try to hit through his opponents using the fh.

pete didnt have the same spin and margin on the fh that federer did, and consequently his consistency suffered on the slower surfaces where players could defend against his attacking game better.

Cenc · Jul 9, 2009

Azzurri said:
Cenc...no offense, but you never even watched Sampras play. You were 9 years old when he retired and still in diapers when he was in his prime. you note that Fed has a better attacking FH and he won points from nowhere..so did Sampras. In fact, Pete's FH was feared and everyone that watched the man play knows his FH was his bread and butter. you also make no sense regarding surfaces...no sense at all.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
i watched around 50 matches with sampras in them
yes i was 10 when he retired but i have like 10 full matches on my pc + tons of them i watched when i just started to play tennis (age 7 and 8) + tons of them i saw on classic channels
i said sampras could win points from nowhere with his forehand...
"sampras' forehand was also special because he could hit winners from nowhere"
great man great
and i know sampras' forehand perfectly well and imo its on the same level as feds
and the fact that someone is younger doesnt mean he is clueless
btw how old are you? have u watched prime laver play? i believe no
so u should be excluded from all the discussions about laver? or maybe u saw several matches and can judge from that?
or you are saying me that i should glorify fed and say he is greater than he actually is
and yes i know it was one of the most feared shots and players were avoiding it all the time
about surfaces? well sampras' forehand was brilliant on fast surfaces while on clay it wasnt that strong, if it was, sampras would have at least 1 FO
because every part of his game (except forehand on clay) is better than moyas and still moya has 1 FO, samp no
also you know, feds forehand has more top spin than sampras' (mostly) and thats why its definitely better for clay
but still the way sampras was hitting that ball was perfect for fast surfaces where he could finish the point from nowhere with just one shot (same thing others build points for)
can you precisly say what i said wrong? except my age? because it seems that you hate me and want to prove that everything i say is wrong so best thing you do is mention my age all the time
great man keep up the good work
or tell me what exactly is wrong?

Azzurri · Jul 9, 2009

zagor said:
He actually said that Sampras's FH can win the point from anywhere which does make a lot of sense actually.I don't know about the surfaces,I think both players prefer the ball to stay low.

Anyway I'd take Fed's overall because of consistency and sick angles but Pete's CC running FH is amazing and his FH has more power than Fed's(although Fed can rip the ball off FH side as well).

ooops...misread. Yes, Cenc is correct.

Azzurri · Jul 9, 2009

Cup8489 said:
you forget that federer's backhand is considerably better than sampras' backhand, especially when looking for angles.

pete had good volleys, but i'm not sure who i'd give it to in this category. pete had good putaways, but fed has come up with some pretty ridiculous shots of his own.

pete was a great mover, but fed is better still, and manages his stamina so he is able to stay on court for hours upon hours.

the general consensus is that, overall, federer is able to play at a higher level of proficiency throughout his whole game when compared to sampras. Agassi said it best, there's nowhere to get with Federer, nowhere you can attack and guarantee success, which wasn't the case with Pete.

really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

Azzurri · Jul 9, 2009

Cenc said:
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
i watched around 50 matches with sampras in them
yes i was 10 when he retired but i have like 10 full matches on my pc + tons of them i watched when i just started to play tennis (age 7 and 8) + tons of them i saw on classic channels
i said sampras could win points from nowhere with his forehand...
"sampras' forehand was also special because he could hit winners from nowhere"
great man great
and i know sampras' forehand perfectly well and imo its on the same level as feds
and the fact that someone is younger doesnt mean he is clueless
btw how old are you? have u watched prime laver play? i believe no
so u should be excluded from all the discussions about laver? or maybe u saw several matches and can judge from that?
or you are saying me that i should glorify fed and say he is greater than he actually is
and yes i know it was one of the most feared shots and players were avoiding it all the time
about surfaces? well sampras' forehand was brilliant on fast surfaces while on clay it wasnt that strong, if it was, sampras would have at least 1 FO
because every part of his game (except forehand on clay) is better than moyas and still moya has 1 FO, samp no
also you know, feds forehand has more top spin than sampras' (mostly) and thats why its definitely better for clay
but still the way sampras was hitting that ball was perfect for fast surfaces where he could finish the point from nowhere with just one shot (same thing others build points for)
can you precisly say what i said wrong? except my age? because it seems that you hate me and want to prove that everything i say is wrong so best thing you do is mention my age all the time
great man keep up the good work
or tell me what exactly is wrong?

I never, ever discuss Laver. please find ONE post where I discuss anyone prior to 1983...you won't find it.

again, watching videos is different, you don't know how tennis was back then and I simply cannot explain it to you. I was too young to remember Vietnam War...but I watch a few films and read a couple books, sorry but that does not make me an expert. Its different viewpoint when you actually live through the experience.

again, watching videos is only a part to getting to know a player. I experienced the 80-90's tennis just like you experience today's tennis. If I watch 50 Laver matches I may be able to tell you about his stroke mechanics, but again that is only a part of the entire player.

Cenc · Jul 9, 2009

Azzurri said:
I never, ever discuss Laver. please find ONE post where I discuss anyone prior to 1983...you won't find it.

again, watching videos is different, you don't know how tennis was back then and I simply cannot explain it to you. I was too young to remember Vietnam War...but I watch a few films and read a couple books, sorry but that does not make me an expert. Its different viewpoint when you actually live through the experience.

again, watching videos is only a part to getting to know a player. I experienced the 80-90's tennis just like you experience today's tennis. If I watch 50 Laver matches I may be able to tell you about his stroke mechanics, but again that is only a part of the entire player.

yes i missed sampras' prime although i saw enough matches from his late years and now relive matches from all the years so that i can discuss his game because i know it well and i appreciate it
also man find better comparation than vietnam war because this is something completely different
so you feel right to call everyone clueless and forbid everyone to state their opinions because of age?
and yes i know what draws looked like and i might not be as informed about some "minor players" who played then or uninformed about sampras' 1st round matches
(still im uninformed about everyones 1st round matches because i start watching slams in the 2nd week (usually))
but i watched most of his slam finals, semis, masters cup matches etc
and u know, this is more than enough to be able to compare his forehand to feds, in fact 20 shots can be enough to see a lot about someones forehand/backhand/serve
also i saw enough to be able to compare his best tennis to feds best tennis
i can watch 2 players i have never seen before and after few matches say who is better in my opinion, is it such a big deal?
im not discussing sampras' dominance or his interviews or things i havent seen
i discuss his game which i definitely know well
i cant talk about my feeling when ivanisevic had BP against sampras the way i can talk about my feelings when ljubicic used to have BP against fed
- it is because i saw just few ivanisevic vs sampras matches live
- most of them i saw relive although i have been following tennis since i was 6 (when i started playing it, quite young age to watch i know)
but game is something completely different what tennis genius like u is supposed to know i guess
so plz rather dont say anything if u have nothing clever to say

PS u mentioned history
well i believe u were not part of napoleons army, but after watching few documentaries about his battles you can definitely say that he was better leader than george bush, right?
and yes i know napoleon was born in 1764 or something like that and we dont know what was the feeling to hear information about wars at THAT TIME but we definitely CAN judge the way he was leading the army
so...

Azzurri · Jul 9, 2009

Cenc said:
yes i missed sampras' prime although i saw enough matches from his late years and now relive matches from all the years so that i can discuss his game because i know it well and i appreciate it
also man find better comparation than vietnam war because this is something completely different
so you feel right to call everyone clueless and forbid everyone to state their opinions because of age?
and yes i know what draws looked like and i might not be as informed about some "minor players" who played then or uninformed about sampras' 1st round matches
(still im uninformed about everyones 1st round matches because i start watching slams in the 2nd week (usually))
but i watched most of his slam finals, semis, masters cup matches etc
and u know, this is more than enough to be able to compare his forehand to feds, in fact 20 shots can be enough to see a lot about someones forehand/backhand/serve
also i saw enough to be able to compare his best tennis to feds best tennis
i can watch 2 players i have never seen before and after few matches say who is better in my opinion, is it such a big deal?
im not discussing sampras' dominance or his interviews or things i havent seen
i discuss his game which i definitely know well
i cant talk about my feeling when ivanisevic had BP against sampras the way i can talk about my feelings when ljubicic used to have BP against fed
- it is because i saw just few ivanisevic vs sampras matches live
- most of them i saw relive although i have been following tennis since i was 6 (when i started playing it, quite young age to watch i know)
but game is something completely different what tennis genius like u is supposed to know i guess
so plz rather dont say anything if u have nothing clever to say

PS u mentioned history
well i believe u were not part of napoleons army, but after watching few documentaries about his battles you can definitely say that he was better leader than george bush, right?
and yes i know napoleon was born in 1764 or something like that and we dont know what was the feeling to hear information about wars at THAT TIME but we definitely CAN judge the way he was leading the army
so...

sorry, but age matters. You never watched Pete from 1989 and witness his rise to the top. You have NO CLUE how and what effect it had on the tennis world. I have NO CLUE how Borg affected the tennis world because I did not see much of him. By the time I started to get interested in tennis, McEnroe was the big gun in tennis. I know the affect he, Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Wilander and whole bunch of others had on the sport.

Watching a few matches (select matches) is not at all like following someone's career week in and week out. You obviously are too close-minded to understand this. I am not saying you are a stupid person, but you are completely clueless about Pete. You only have OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND A FEW MATCHES ON VIDEO to give your valueless opinion. Your opinion is meaningless and not your own...and if it were it would be flawed.

pmerk34 · Jul 9, 2009

Azzurri said:
really? so explain to me why Nadal basically destroys his "considerably" better BH when they play? Why? I think you give Fed wayyyyy too much credit. His BH is average and not "considerably" better than Pete's. I never, ever saw anyone attack Pete weakness (BH) like Nadal does to Fed's BH.

Nadal successfully attacks it the most on clay. Pete would never have beaten Nadal on clay.

Azzurri · Jul 9, 2009

pmerk34 said:
Nadal successfully attacks it the most on clay. Pete would never have beaten Nadal on clay.

uhh, yea I don't know what you mean. I am not talking about Pete vs. Nadal. You missed the point. Fed has a weak BH and Nadal exposes it..by the way, Wimbledon and Australia are not clay courts. Guess you missed that.

Sampras/Fed Forehands Compared

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

New User

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Banned

Legend

Banned

New User

Hall of Fame

Jchurch

Guest

Legend

Banned

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

lordmanji

Guest

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads