Sampras would have beaten Fed at their primes

Wondertoy · Sep 17, 2009

If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

drakulie · Sep 17, 2009

Here is a nice article about this topic:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/2001/wimbledon/news/2001/07/02/wimbledon_monday_ap/

wyutani · Sep 17, 2009

uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

akv89 · Sep 17, 2009

Sampras isn't going to be serving every game.

tudwell · Sep 17, 2009

So Federer, who's won 15 grand slams, 6 Wimbledons, and 65 consecutive matches on grass, could not do what one-slam-wonder Krajicek did in 1996?

Right.

AAAA · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

Wayne Ferreira has a better record against Sampras than Agassi so there's no need to be the better or best returner to have better success against Sampras.

warreng · Sep 17, 2009

What silly logic.

If we were thinking this way, Andre owned Pete at the French and Aussie opens. By your thinking then Federer would wipe the floor with Pete on those surfaces...

DrpShot! · Sep 17, 2009

Neither of them would hold as many slams as they do now if they were playing at the same time.

wyutani · Sep 17, 2009

nadal will beat both + agassi easily.

ASL · Sep 17, 2009

Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a RETIRED Pete wionagainst a Fed who was in his PRIME.

rocket · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a retired Pete WON against a Fed who was in his PRIME.

Exhibition... where they giggled after each point?

rocket · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

Fed possesses many more weapons than Agassi.

wyutani · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a retired Pete WON against a Fed who was in his PRIME.

lol, this is hilarious....you really thought sampras won for real? man, get out from that box of urs. see the world. its not all black and white, win or lose.

hilarious.

Wondertoy · Sep 17, 2009

wyutani said:
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

Pete was past his prime.

Wondertoy · Sep 17, 2009

tudwell said:
So Federer, who's won 15 grand slams, 6 Wimbledons, and 65 consecutive matches on grass, could not do what one-slam-wonder Krajicek did in 1996?

Right.

It's harder to break Krajicek on grass than it is to break Fed. Pete in his prime would S&V Fed's back hand to death.

ASL · Sep 17, 2009

rocket said:
Exhibition... where they giggled after each point?

Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

All-rounder · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
It's harder to break Krajicek on grass than it is to break Fed. Pete in his prime would S&V Fed's back hand to death.

Ok whatever :roll: shoulda woulda coulda doesn't change anything

All-rounder · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

It's an EXHIBTION MATCH!! for flip sake. It's not like federer was playing as if a top 10 player was on the other side of the net

drakulie · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
Pete was past his prime.

Fact is, Sampras had a higher serving percentage in that match, than he did in any of his 7 wimbledon finals. Perhaps he should have served like this more often and he would have had even more titles (during his "prime").

Breaker · Sep 17, 2009

Not if Jaime Yzaga got to him first.

rocket · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

1st point from your clip. Sampras smiled walking back, looked at Fed, shook his head in relief, smiled some more. Fed also smiled. They were having a good time playing & earning millions in meaningless matches.

Fed would have ripped Sampras apart if he played seriously, sorry to say. Sampras still has all the shots, but now is a bit slow and wouldn't be competitive enough.

Try again.

ASL · Sep 17, 2009

rocket said:
1st point from your clip. Sampras smiled walking back, looked a Fed, shook his head in relief, smiled some more. Fed also smiled. They were having a good time playing & earning millions in meaningless matches.

Fed would have ripped Sampras apart if he played seriously, sorry to say. Sampras still has all the shots, but now is a bit slow and wouldn't be competitive enough.

Try again.

Yeah, We all know Federer's mentality when he loses (USO Final). He obviously wanted to win that match too. Or did he just let Pete win?

drakulie · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Or did he just let Pete win?

yes, he did.

Cesc Fabregas · Sep 17, 2009

Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

grafselesfan · Sep 17, 2009

In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

ArrowSmith · Sep 17, 2009

What a pointless discussion. Would you make Federer play with the same raquet(no Luxilon strings) and make him use the same training techniques as circa 1993 Sampras? There are so many variables that go into this prime vs prime nonsense, that's no use even trying.

Chadwixx · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Yeah, We all know Federer's mentality when he loses (USO Final). He obviously wanted to win that match too. Or did he just let Pete win?

Did he lose 6-0 or 6-1 like the mental giant pete did? Did pete even win a set off safin or hewitt?

Hard to claim a greater mental game when one lost in 5 sets and the other lost in 3.

ArrowSmith · Sep 17, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

If the net game mattered more, Federer would have superior volleys. But we live in a baseline bashing age, and Fed does well in that. You make absolute no sense. "More powerful forehand"? Please.

ArrowSmith · Sep 17, 2009

Chadwixx said:
Did he lose 6-0 or 6-1 like the mental giant pete did? Did pete even win a set off safin or hewitt?

Hard to claim a greater mental game when one lost in 5 sets and the other lost in 3.

Yeah I remember when PRIME Sampras got bageled by Kafelnikov at the 1996 French semis....

fed_rulz · Sep 17, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
Regardless of the 1 more major, Sampras is the better player. He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys. Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals and a winning record over his nearest rival.

LOL, so many epic fails in this post, i don't know where to begin.

>> He has more weapons, more powerful forehand, greater serve and superior volleys

Yet, he has 3 majors less than Federer at the same age. No FO either. What's the use of all those "weapons" if it does not win him majors?

>>Also Pete was the better match player, with a better win/loss ratio in major finals

Now suddenly, losing in R1 is better than losing in a slam final. Sorry, epic fail again. Fed has played in more major finals/SF than Pete, and has won more.

>> a winning record over his nearest rival
which is skewed, because Pete chickened out of meeting Agassi on Agassi's strongest surfaces; whereas Agassi was man enough to meet Sampras on Pete's favorite surfaces. Same with Fed/Nadal; Having said that, the Fedal rivalry is at a much higher level than the Pete-dre one.

Let me give you an analogy:
We have two guys, P & A, who are both great champions in eating competitions. P loves hot-dogs, but is not fond of burritos. A loves burritos, and hot-dogs came second.

In a given year, there were 10 each of hot-dog and burrito competitions. P & A both participated in the hot-dog competitions. P won every time. Fearing the nasty aftermath of eating burritos, P never participated in any of the burrito eating competitions. A won every one of them.

End result: h2h between P & A : 10-0 in P's favor.

go figure!

DownTheLine · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
Pete was past his prime.

Federer was also very young and inexpierenced..

ASL · Sep 17, 2009

grafselesfan said:
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

truthorbust · Sep 17, 2009

Wondertoy said:
If the best returner in the game, Agassi, couldn't break Sampras at Wimbledon and the US Open, how is Fed going to break Sampras in his prime and those surfaces? Ergo, Sampras would have beaten Fed in their primes although Federer is the GOAT due to his accomplishment against his peers in his era.

That makes little sense. You have forgotten that tiebreaks are tricky territory and that Fed serves alot better than Andre did and that his game is much more well rounded and varied. That would have caused Pete big concern adn IMO most likely defeat.For Pete.

flying24 · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Right as if Sampras is better on clay, ROTFL!!!

wilkinru · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Yeah, he ONLY makes it to the finals EVERY YEAR.

Damn he is a joke!

The dude made it to the finals of EVERY MAJOR this year and won 2 of them. Who are you kidding?

flying24 · Sep 17, 2009

wilkinru said:
Yeah, he ONLY makes it to the finals EVERY YEAR.

Damn he is a joke!

The dude made it to the finals of EVERY MAJOR this year and won 2 of them. Who are you kidding?

Yeah he should have instead lost to Gilbert Schaller, Roman Delgado, and a pre prime then nobody Magnus Norman (who himself would lose to Filip Dewful in that years semifinalist) at the French Open during his prime like the clay court legend Pete Sampras.

Agassifan · Sep 17, 2009

LOL. Prime Fed > Prime Sampras > Prime Agassi

akv89 · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

Del Potro is now a 20 year old major winner. Federer's draw at the FO can no longer be considered a joke

flying24 · Sep 17, 2009

Pretty desperate straw grasping too to mock Federer for having a 5 setter with Haas. Prime Kuerten was 1 point from a straight sets loss to Russell. Everyone has their off days.

Agassifan · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
It's hilarious how overated Federer is on clay. I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final. Not to mention almost losing to Haas the clay court specialist.

He beat the second best player on THAT surface in the final.

Chadwixx · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
I mean, had a joke of draw en route to the final.

Kinda like pete's 1999 wimbledon where the avgerage ranking of his opponenet was #141, LOL.

flying24 · Sep 17, 2009

Chadwixx said:
Kinda like pete's 1999 wimbledon where the avgerage ranking of his opponenet was #141, LOL.

or Petes draw in 1997 where in the quarters he played a retiring washed up Becker who had lost to Kafelnikov on grass the event before, in the semis played Todd Woodbridge a doubles specialist, and in the final the great Cedric Pioline. His lone test being in the 4th round form Petr Korda who took him to 5 sets.

Net47 · Sep 17, 2009

To the OP, there's no reasoning with the Federer fanatics on this board. (Or the snobby Borgians, who think the guy could have competed with his loopy topsin groundstrokes and meek serve in any era other than his own). I will say this for Sampras: he could step on the court today and blow his serve consistently by anyone on the tour...including Federer. He did exactly that in the exos. And exos or not, that was embarrassing for Federer. No one likes to get smoked time after time on the serve.

Lion King · Sep 17, 2009

Net47 said:
To the OP, there's no reasoning with the Federer fanatics on this board. (Or the snobby Borgians, who think the guy could have competed with his loopy topsin groundstrokes and meek serve in any era other than his own). I will say this for Sampras: he could step on the court today and blow his serve consistently by anyone on the tour...including Federer. He did exactly that in the exos. And exos or not, that was embarrassing for Federer. No one likes to get smoked time after time on the serve.

Buddy, you're forgetting one thing: hitting aces in an exo is not the same as hitting aces in the fifth set of a tough match. If Pete's serve was that great, why did he ever lose to anyone? He was supposed to ace all of them to death

Azzurri · Sep 17, 2009

wyutani said:
uhh...no. fed beat sampras in wimbly 2001. so no.

uhh, prime Sampras. While Fed was not at his prime either the match means NOTHING. So if Aurnaud Clement played Sampras once he is better? One match means NOTHING, has no bearing on anything.

doom · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Point to me where there is ANY giggling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuIvlyvWAoI

Federer played as well as he did back in 07. Excuses are pointless.

They were giggling after the very first point.

IvanAndreevich · Sep 17, 2009

Azzurri said:
uhh, prime Sampras. While Fed was not at his prime either the match means NOTHING. So if Aurnaud Clement played Sampras once he is better? One match means NOTHING, has no bearing on anything.

It does mean something. It doesn't mean that Federer would own Sampras all the way, but it illustrates that there is no match-up problem for Fed.

Net47 · Sep 17, 2009

Lion King said:
Buddy, you're forgetting one thing: hitting aces in an exo is not the same as hitting aces in the fifth set of a tough match. If Pete's serve was that great, why did he ever lose to anyone? He was supposed to ace all of them to death

Lol. "If Pete's serve was that great..." Many, many people outside of this board think it may have been the greatest ever when both first and second serve are taken into account. YOU'RE forgetting that his serve was good enough to win 14 slams. All hail Roger, fine. He's done a great job of beating Andy Roddick time after time. (Not so great at beating Nadal.) But the dismissive view that so many here have of Sampras is impossible to fathom.

jamesblakefan#1 · Sep 17, 2009

ASL said:
Of course Prime Sampras would of beaten Federer. Just look at the exhibition match they played in Macau where a RETIRED Pete wionagainst a Fed who was in his PRIME.

What's up GameSampras? :lol:

jamesblakefan#1 · Sep 17, 2009

grafselesfan said:
In their primes this is what I see:

At Wimbledon: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At U.S Open: Sampras wins 4 out of 5
At French Open: Federer wins the 1 or 2 out of 1 or 2 (but they are tougher than people expect)
At Australian Open: they split 2 out 4 each

Given that the gravy place for slams titles are Wimbledon and the U.S Open for both Sampras clearly has the advantage.

This is the biggest load of crap I've seen.

In other words, par for the course for you, GSF.

Sampras would have beaten Fed at their primes

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

New User

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Banned

Legend

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

New User

Semi-Pro

Legend

Banned

Legend

New User

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads