mental strength: Sampras or Federer?
- Thread starter ksbh
- Start date
- Status
black calling the kettle pot?
really dude.. show me one poster who said Fed's second best surface is clay as you claimed.
Dude, you got it all wrong. Chadwixx said Fed is the 2nd best clay courter in this decade, not his 2nd best surface.
Go back and read, slowwwwwwwly.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
That is exactly the point. Federer has an equal or even better in Nadal. Sampras didn't and yet you Sampras fans keep insisting Samps had tougher competition.
After all this will you still insist Samps had tougher competition?
Edit: You're owned and you can't even see it
None and yet Federer achieves more in the slams despite having tougher competition. 15 instead of 14. Career slam vs none. FO vs none. So Sampras came up short in the slams against inferior opponents. It just makes Sampras's fewer slam achievents vs. Federer look bad considering Sampras faced inferior opponents all the time.
You're welcome.
Last edited:
ksbh
Banned
So tell me now, 4A, considering your accurate remark below, just how can your clan claim that Federer is the GOAT when you admit that he has an equal or better? We're finally getting somewhere!
AAAA
Hall of Fame
I think tournament results have greater weighting in GOAT evaluation than h2h scrores?
Do you agree?
Or do you think h2h scores matter more in GOAT evaluation than tournament results?
Let me know if you can dig one up. Please no bloggers/twitter links, i want something a bit more official.
Thanks
This is a trick question because sampras wasnt consistent enough to establish a rival on clay. Look at his head to head with agassi (his chief rival for his career) at the Ao and Fo (slower surfaces).
Id put guga over fed too, but not sure if he is in the same generation/decade. Fed is making a pretty good case though, many finals and one champion.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
Not this BS once again.
Azzurri
Legend
LOL...were in the heII did you get this information from? this is total BS. he had the disease, he NEVER used it as an excuse. he never even mentioned it. I don't recall how, but someone else got hold of it and informed the press in 1997, so Pete admitted it at that time. almost 10 years after he joined the tour. Drama Queen?? Again, he never made that excuse and never even talked it about let alone used it as an excuse.
He was also NOT a carrier. that would not have affected him much, but he has the disease. to a normal person it does affect you much, but not a pro tennis player. that is just ridiculous pukes on the board call Pete a drama queen (or did you make that up?).
vs.
Who's got more mental strength?
Discuss seriously please.
You are saying a weak, little kitten is comparable to Pete?
Cantankersore
Semi-Pro
Azzurri
Legend
vs.
Who's got more mental strength?
Discuss seriously please.
love the shirt!!!!!
Azzurri
Legend
T1000
Legend
Federer is mentally tough because he completely dominated a field for 4 years (2004-2007) Pete was mentally tough because of his ability to win in the clutch and pressure situations, kind of like a Derek Jeter or Michael Jordan. I think they are tougher in different areas but in a one match situation I would go with Pete
Thank you for seeing the whole picture when evaluating mental toughness. Pete was mentally tough in one tight match, however Federer is way tougher consistently throughout the course of their prime career, and was tough on every surfaces.
I think having mentally tough for long period of time in all 4 seasons has more weigh than just one match here and there.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Last time I checked this thread was about Federer and Sampras not Nadal .I claimed it had nothing to do with mental toughness as far as FEDERER was concerned.Obviously reading comprehension fail.
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
that should apply more to you actually because either way you're just banging on a fairly small blip.I stated several times that their H2H is a result of BAD-MATCHUP as well Nadal being a great player himself and yet you continue to tell me how Nadal has beaten Roger on surfaces other than clay like I dont know it.
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
I dont remember saying I watched Pete at the age of 7.Again,quit making assumptions about people on an internet forum unless you got no life outside of it.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Oh ok..I geddit.Without actually bothering to go over how a match went you'd include it in your OP just to show us that Federer is mentally weaker than Sampras.
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
That does not qualify you to use rubbish words to describe them.Get over yourself.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Or maybe just its you failing to notice that many have several times said it was a minor form of mono but still going ahead and generalising .
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Question to Sampras fanboys- Which surface did Federer FAIL to win a slam on?Finally, an answer to my question! Thank you, young Veronik!
Let's wait to hear from Feddie fans as well
Another one
Which slam did Sampras get owned in by anyone reaching only ONE semis there?
Last edited:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
you're either way grasping on to straws no?!
makes no difference whatsoever, annoying ksbh. :wink:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
LOL exactly.Anyone who agrees with him is a sensible fan and anyone who dosent is a clown,joke,loser etc.
wow..great thread now that tmf and fedrulz are ignored.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4199876&postcount=46
AAAA
Hall of Fame
He's disappeared. Funny how I answered his questions but he won't answer mine.
ksbh
Banned
What the hell are you on, 4A?! By the time you wrote your post, I was done with this forum yesterday. You're not really expecting me to stay on all day & night, are you? What do you think I am, a Feddie fan?!
I'll answer your questions shortly. Fond regards,
I'll answer your questions shortly. Fond regards,
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Yes I do do. I think you've posted more than I have in this thread.
Edit: Just noticed you started this thread so yeah it's more of interest to you than me.
Last edited:
ksbh
Banned
I've stated several times that the H2H is not so relevant simply because of the clay factor where Nadal is vastly superior to Federer. It's something that I actually agree with the Feddie fans! :shock:
So a direct answer to your question is- yes, I agree. Tournament results have greater influence on GOAT than H2H.
Now question for you- Who is greater ... Emerson or Laver?
So a direct answer to your question is- yes, I agree. Tournament results have greater influence on GOAT than H2H.
Now question for you- Who is greater ... Emerson or Laver?
ksbh
Banned
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Emerson has the greater slam count in his favour over Laver.
ksbh
Banned
Great answer, 4A! Nobody in his right mind would say Emerson is a greater player than Laver. In your answer and careful choice of words (see bolded) lies the answer to your original question as well. One cannot be a greater player than the other simply based on tournament results! Such a question can only be answered by the use of qualifying terminology as you have correctly done.
Therefore my assertion that Federer isn't the GOAT based on several factors.
Therefore my assertion that Federer isn't the GOAT based on several factors.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
But based on several factors I've said over the years I'd pick Federer over Sampras for GOAT consideration. Federer has a many of the best numbers across a range of plausible judging criteria.
ksbh
Banned
AAAA
Hall of Fame
He has supporters who think otherwise.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Driver's Seat
Banned
Id pick Rod Laver any day over both Sampras asnd Roger. Laver has an overrall resume, the domination, the number of titles, the longevity, the calendar slams, that most players could only dream of. For as dominant as Roger was, (for a while the most dominant in history) he still couldnt manage a calendar slam. He let his opponent get the best of him in 6 slam finals and on 3 different surfaces. Thats not something the GOAT should have on his resume. Letting your rival get the best of you time and time again? Fed has had some great years and some good years. To me he needs a few more great years to equal Laver. Just going by a slam count isnt enough IMO.
NonP
Legend
You really think a single link would settle this question. It’s a lot more complicated than that, largely because the radar gun systems have never been standardized and different systems have produced different readings even to this day. These systems vary from tournament to tournament. For conclusive proof one would need to gather info on all the systems that have been used since the measurements began. Think I’ll pass.
Here’s at least a quote on the modern radar guns:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-02-24-ten-hardest-tennis-return_x.htm
And I saw this on another thread a few days ago:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4192751#post4192751
So the serve was clocked differently back then. Also the same gun can produce different measurements depending on its position. Here’s Goran talking about his serve speeds in ’95:
http://www.goranonline.com/articles/gi_ten95.html
Back in ’95 down-the-T serves registered the fastest, serves out wide the slowest. Of course this is still true, but the difference is that radar arrays are sometimes used today which time the angled serves more accurately. Considering that the wide serve was Goran’s specialty, I wouldn’t be surprised that those 110-mph serves of his were in fact serves out wide that would register faster on today’s guns. And that’s not taking into account the speed lost from the contact point to near the net.
Now as to when the guns began to time serves closer at impact, most likely around the end of the ‘90s or the beginning of the ‘00s. There was a piece in TENNIS mag a few years ago featuring a table of serve speeds over demarcated periods, which showed a slight increase in 120/130-mph serves from ’94-’99 but a disproportionate increase from ’99-’04. You say this was due to players like Agassi training harder. I’m pretty sure Datacipher would gleefully take you to task on that. In short, weight training can indeed improve the serve of a recreational or nonprofessional player like us, but for a pro athlete like Agassi whatever gains in serve speed wouldn’t be significant. And finally we know the startling increase in 120/130-mph fastballs at the turn of the millennium wasn’t due to the “advanced” or “better” racquet technology, as anyone who’s been hitting with different racquets over the years would attest that these new racquets do very little to speed up serves.
That first link is from 2003. The guns and measuring system have changed since then. They were using physically different guns for stella/davis cup back then(where roddick set his records, clocked it off the strings), so im assuming he was referring to those guns, not the ones used at grand slams/other events. I think the other gun measured around the T on the servers side.
I agree about the gun positioning. I have been clocked at upto 120 (im a baseliner though). I did hit a few i thought were much harder than the registerd 120 but showed up at like 105. Seems if you hit the serve directly at the gun it gives you a bit more.
Agassi wasnt a typical pro athlete. He wasnt fit or strong until 1997. Go back and look at some video of him, very skinny legs/arm and no chest. Combine that with modern technology (look into what happened when someone accidently put poly into agassi's fram in rome, i think, he was mad, love it and never went back). Agassi was much stronger post 1997 then he was before that. I think he was on steroids but thats another issue.
I agree about the gun positioning. I have been clocked at upto 120 (im a baseliner though). I did hit a few i thought were much harder than the registerd 120 but showed up at like 105. Seems if you hit the serve directly at the gun it gives you a bit more.
Agassi wasnt a typical pro athlete. He wasnt fit or strong until 1997. Go back and look at some video of him, very skinny legs/arm and no chest. Combine that with modern technology (look into what happened when someone accidently put poly into agassi's fram in rome, i think, he was mad, love it and never went back). Agassi was much stronger post 1997 then he was before that. I think he was on steroids but thats another issue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
