I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love Roger, but I don't like saying GOAT, since you can only speculate what would have happen, and create hypothetical scenarios. I am very happy to say Federer is the Greatest of his era, and Nadal the greatest Clay courter of his era, since that is proven fact. But comparing generations, surfaces, training, depth of competition, technology is not that simple.
Sampras was the greatest of his era. Federer the greatest of his. Nadal greatest clay courter of his era. Borg the greatest of his era.
I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion
Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.
Its a totally different game now
um, no.. Sampras does not belong in the conversation anymore.
Fed and Sampras are close but still far apart in comparing.. The game has changed so much just since the mid 90s. Nevermind the 50s and 60s.
Its a totally different game now
What huge changes have taken place since the 90s?
But Sampras and Fed are close enough in time that it's not that difficult to compare their achievements and observe that Fed has surpassed Sampras on any surface and in any department.
14 slams
Record Year #1
Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
Stopped his main rivals
Davis Cup
2 AO's
He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him
Sampras is probably the best player currently who doesn't have a case for being the GOAT. Federer took it away from him by matching him on grass/hard courts (even surpassing him on hard courts) and being 3 leagues above him on clay. Sampras doesn't have any "special achievements" to put him in the coversation unlike:
- Borg who did the channel Slam 3 times on completely different surfaces
- Nadal who completely dominated a surface, won all 4 majors and has a positive h2h against virtually everybody
- Laver with 2 calender slams
- Federer who almost completely dominated half a decade, I could write a whole chapter about Federer's "special" achievements but let's name a couple: winning Wimbledon/US 5 times in a row each, 23 major SF in a row, 17 majors
14 slams
Record Year #1
Tied for Most Wimbledon titles
5 USO titles (most finals appearances)
2nd longest reign (or 3rd if you factor in Pancho was on top longer then Fed and Sampras) at #1 in history
Stopped and dominated his main rivals
Davis Cup
2 AO's
He deserves to be in the conversation regardless of how much you hate him
Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had.
Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one
And Pete had no FO. Your point?
Besides Borg just barely missed out on a US Open title, he reached 4 finals and IMO was just unlucky not to score once at least, he had a great shot in 1980 and 1976 but just couldn't deliver that final blow.
Racket technology, carpet is gone, fast courts in general are gone, variety is gone, surface specialists are gone
Beating the field counts the most and Federer did it alot better than Sampras ever did.
Borg had NO hardcourt slam title, and retired at 25-26 years of age (So to put Borg there and not Pete is nuts).. He also doesn't have nearly the time on top that Sampras and Fed have had. Fed couldn't dominate his main rival (In fact, he got beat by his main rival on THREE different surfaces at the slams). Who did that to Sampras? No one.
And If you're gonna put Borg as a GOAT candidate then you have to put Nadal.. Simple as that.. Nadal has gotten the best EVERY ONE of his main rivals.. Borg couldn't do that. Nadal won all 4 slams.. Borg didn't. Nadal also has the same number of slams as Borg.
that's the last straw that Pete and his legion of ****s seem to want to hold on to... something they manufactured in a desperate attempt to knock Federer and still keep pete in the discussion.
Pete's main "rival" Agassi had exactly 2 slams when Pete's prime ended!! If having such credentials constitutes a "main" rival, then you must concede that Pete faced almost no competition during his prime. How can someone with 2 slams constitute a "main" rival. If that were to be the case, then Hewitt, Safin and to some extent Roddick were Federer's comparable rivals, whom he dominated!
btw, contrary to your claim that eras can't be compared, you seem perfectly ok indulging in that exercise as long as you can draw favorable mileage from it?
My point is you can put Borg there and not sampras? Laughable. Sampras won slams 12 years apart, had way more time on top then Borg, way more longevity, more slams, dominated his best surface more then Borg dominated his, more YEC, dominated his main rivals, Borg couldn't (Neither could Fed for that matter) etc..
If there is such thing as a GOAT its probably Laver or Pancho. The have the least holes in their resumes
ROFLMAO.. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Rafter etc.. is no competiton?
Then whats On and off again Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Pup Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, 40 year old Agassi, Gonzales, Baghdatis? Roadkill? Outside of Nadal (who didn't hit his prime until 2008), there is less then half a dozen slams between all those guys
You don't understand what we're arguing about. I said Sampras had no "special achievements" and I stick to that. He has no single achievement that will make people say "wow no-one is ever going to match that!"
1)He has 7 Wimbledons? Great. Federer has 7 as well and 8 finals.
2)He has majors 12 years apart? Who cares? Should Federer get more credit for winning 15 majors in barely 6 years?
3)He dominated his main rivals? And who would that be again? With Federer it's obvious you have Djokovic and Nadal (Murray might join later on) - all-time greats already. Who did Sampras beat again? Ivanisevic and Rafter?
Besides, Sampras didn't dominate grass more than Nadal did clay, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Sampras didn't give a damn about grass bar one tournament - Wimbledon while Nadal has gone like 300-10 in the last 7-8 years or so on that surface which includes a major and 3 Masters. Sampras would NEVER dominate to that degree on grass if there was Wimbledon backed up with 3 Masters. Heck, he couldn't even dominate Queen's Club and won like 11 Masters titles in his whole career...imagine him winning 2-3 Masters for 7-8 years like Nadal did. Really...
I agree.. I think Laver, Pancho, Federer, Sampras and Rosewall could all make statements saying their the greatest ever, and they would all have a case. Just my opinion
He won 2 slams a year 4 times. He had 286 weeks as the world #1 and 6 YE #1's. He also won the YEC 5x to Nadal's 0. Plus he has 3 more slams...
Sampras > Nadal by a big margin at the moment.
Rightt... So :
Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...
Isn't "special".
Go to bed ****
Rightt... So :
Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...
Isn't "special".
Go to bed ****
your point is about dominating the main rival, so stick to it. if you want to include ALL rivals, then let's sum up the h2h counts for Pete vs his rivals, and Federer vs his rivals. Are you ready?
btw, you're again comparing Becker, Edberg etc. with Hewitt, Safin etc., despite your claims to the contrary that players across eras cannot be compared (nevermind the fact that Hewitt and Safin pwned Pete in their maiden slam finals... lol, so much for mental strength; can't hold off first timers).
Sampras can't. Stop kidding yourself.
Once again, you're proving that you can't read properly. Does anyone go "wow, nobody is going to break that record!" at any of Sampras' records? Or any you mentioned? Besides, those aren't even records.
I whole heartedly agree with this statement. I love Roger, but I don't like saying GOAT, since you can only speculate what would have happen, and create hypothetical scenarios. I am very happy to say Federer is the Greatest of his era, and Nadal the greatest Clay courter of his era, since that is proven fact. But comparing generations, surfaces, training, depth of competition, technology is not that simple.
Sampras was the greatest of his era. Federer the greatest of his. Nadal greatest clay courter of his era. Borg the greatest of his era.
Rightt... So :
Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...
Isn't "special".
Go to bed ****
And Fed can't hold off his main rival. Hasn't been able to his ENTIRE career.. In fact, he gets taken to the woodshed on THREE count them THREE surfaces.. And has let his rival gather 11 slams and counting. Sampras only allowed Andre to gather 8 (And most of those came after Sampras' prime was done)
ROFLMAO.. Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Courier, Rafter etc.. is no competiton?
Then whats On and off again Safin, Nalbandian, Baby Pup Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, 40 year old Agassi, Gonzales, Baghdatis? Roadkill? Outside of Nadal and (who didn't hit his prime until 2008) and Agassi who's prime was over before Fed's began, there is less then half a dozen slams between all those guys
It's not. Only a blind Petetard like yourself would try and argue that Pete is special when Federer has matched or surpassed all but the Davis Cup, ye #1 (more than made up by the fact Federer held #1 for 237 consecutive weeks, something Sampras didn't even sniff at), and most USO finals (congrats to Pete, he took more USO's to win 5 than Federer, woo hoo).
Get out of thread, your argument is crap. Davis Cup is a nonissue for many people, and one more YE#1 certainly doesn't make up for the deficit in both not having A FO, only two AO's, and 3 majors less, AND COUNTING.
Why would claycourters be considered "competition" for Sampras? :lol: And it's hilarious you mention old-guy Becker as competition for Sampras but don't mention Djokovic, Murray or Del Potro as competition for Federer. You are a joke. Sampras isn't even relevant in the GOAT discussion. If the head-to-head is so important, care to explain Sampras's record against Krajicek?
Fed was already working on DOUBLE DIGIT slams by the time Djoker, Murray, and Del Potro ever did CRAP!!!
Regardless, they aren't Fed's contemporaries. The only bunch out of them was Nadal (And thats because he was an early bloomer)
If Sampras didn't place those records there would be nothing to shoot for. ALL RECORDS (Barring Laver's will probably be broken).. Thats what records are there for.. To be broke.
Looks like another clown I have to put on the ignore list.
I expect records to continue to be broken as long as they are placed.. The only records that probably will never be broken are Laver's 200 titles and 2 Calendar slams. Anything outside of those are ripe for the picking
It doesn't mean they aren't special records though
Pete has a perfectly valid point. The GOAT, whomever that is, owns their main rivals as Sampras did, as Laver did, as Gonzales did, as Tilden did. Federer is probably the only top 10 player all time, let alone serious GOAT candidate, who was owned that badly by a fellow all time great and their greatest rival, 8-2 in slams is quite embarassing. Nadal is overall not much, if any, better than Agassi, and Sampras certainly was the boss in that rivalry, while Nadal is even more the boss in his rivalry with Federer. It doesnt mean Nadal is better than Federer, but it does mean Federer's GOAT claims are dubious at best.
Hey *******s, a GOAT doesn't get his butt whipped by a claycourter across all surfaces. :lol: Nor does he get whipped by a Djoker in straights twice at the AO. How many more "Federer was past his prime" excuses can a person make?
How is 18-10 "overall not much" better than 20-14?
Rightt... So :
Most Wimbledon titles in history (tied with Federer)
Davis Cup
5 USO titles and most finals
Most year end #1s
2nd or 3rd longest reign in history at #1
4 YEC
14 slams
etc...
Isn't "special".
Go to bed ****
Hey *******s, a GOAT doesn't get his butt whipped by a claycourter across all surfaces. :lol: Nor does he get whipped by a Djoker in straights twice at the AO. How many more "Federer was past his prime" excuses can a person make?
Pete has a perfectly valid point. The GOAT, whomever that is, owns their main rivals as Sampras did, as Laver did, as Gonzales did, as Tilden did. Federer is probably the only top 10 player all time, let alone serious GOAT candidate, who was owned that badly by a fellow all time great and their greatest rival, 8-2 in slams is quite embarassing. Nadal is overall not much, if any, better than Agassi, and Sampras certainly was the boss in that rivalry, while Nadal is even more the boss in his rivalry with Federer. It doesnt mean Nadal is better than Federer, but it does mean Federer's GOAT claims are dubious at best.
Nadal is not just way ahead of Agassi at this point, he will likely be ahead of even Sampras by the time he's done. Let's put this in context. Sampras had to contend with an Agassi-level player. Federer had to contend with a Sampras-level player (in Nadal) and an Agassi-level player (in Djokovic). And that's actually underselling Nadal and Djokovic. I'm fairly sure they'll be considered BETTER than Sampras and Agassi by the time they're done. And again, the head-to-head means nothing. Sampras couldn't even dominate Krajicek. And let's not forget, he is 0-1 against Federer (on his favorite court on his best surface).
Hey *******s, a GOAT doesn't get his butt whipped by a claycourter across all surfaces. :lol: Nor does he get whipped by a Djoker in straights twice at the AO. How many more "Federer was past his prime" excuses can a person make?
Fed was already working on DOUBLE DIGIT slams by the time Djoker, Murray, and Del Potro ever did CRAP!!!
Regardless, they aren't Fed's contemporaries. The only bunch out of them was Nadal (And thats because he was an early bloomer). Fed's main contemporaries were Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Davydenko etc.
Fed's been "Old and washed up" since 2007, Dont you know
6 consecutive year ends at #1 was pretty special. I don't think that Sampras was "lesser" than Borg or Nadal, they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but at this point Fed has (unambiguously) achieved more than him. That's pretty irreversible, unfortunately for Pete.