The-Champ
Legend
He will then start lauding aboud Djokovic owning Rafa.....7 matches in a row.
Pete will not say that. He only cares about the majors and Nadal is 6-3 vs Nole.
He will then start lauding aboud Djokovic owning Rafa.....7 matches in a row.
talk about agenda.... why do you feel the need to remind everyone that Federer hasn't won the Grand Slam in every thread about Federer? Insecure much? If the Grand Slam is the holy grail of tennis achievements, surely you don't have to bring it up pretty much in every GOAT debate (using your own logic...)
btw, show me where in the OP I sang praises of how "great" my false "god" is?
We're discussing whether Sampras is right in his supposed claims or not,
I don't see anyone proclaiming Federer as GOAT here; you felt slighted that your true "god" Laver was shortchanged because... Sampras felt he was GOAT, and others here felt he wasn't???
Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.
No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".
Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.
You can take away Federer's 2009 FO away from him but a gazillion finals is still better than a handful of humiliating 1st round losses that Sampras suffered to complete journeymen at the FO.
Which Laver? The little guy who beat up on amateurs to win most of his Slams? That Laver?
yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.
Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.Overall? They're close. Sampras had 3 more slams, a bunch of WTF and a lot more weeks at #1 (logical since hard is the majority surface, clay the minority). Nadal has the golden career slam and a lot more master titles. He's also the #1 on clay, something that Sampras is not on any surface. So it's a toss and it depends on which criteria you value the most.
Federer has a career Grand Slam.
I mean, Sampras is a definite notch below Federer.
Oh please. There is no such thing as "golden career slam." The whole thing was invented because of Agassi. Olympics still doesn't have a great history for tennis no matter which way you slice it.
yeah, unfortunately for you, you are NOT the one who gets to decide that.
If it was invented, then it exists. Davis Cup didn't exist before that Davis guy invented it but now it does. Same goes for golden career slam. Couldn't care less for whom it was invented. It was and now it exists and Nadal has it, Agassi has it, Sampras doesn't.
Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.
No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there
in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.
It was invented by the Agassi-loving media (no complaints there, I like Andre). But I rarely see the term being used now, leaving aside Nadal's most ardent followers of course. So yeah, even the media thinks its passe
Irrelevant--as it is easy to collect any of the four over the span of years. He was incapable of concentrated dominance over the field at majors during a season (calendar year), like Laver.
To modify your words, without the Grand Slam, Federer is a definite drop below Laver.
But it's certainly not easy to win 17 slams, holds 302 weeks at #1, 23 straight semifinals, or reaching 24 slam finals. Those are just a few records that lifted him above everyone else, including Laver.
And Laver have conceded Federer is the greatest, that speaks volume.
Nothing "unfortunate" there, as the fact remains he only won a FO due to the luck of Nadal not being on the opposite side of the net.
No, what is shameful is that false "god" federer only won his fluke FO because Nadal was not there--in other words, Federer had no business winning a FO.
Try all of the threads you either launched or posted in where your pro Fed agenda was/is clear. As if that was not enough, your username closes that case, kid.
No honest, sound mind would base threads on "supposed" statements--but then again, anyone doing it knows no grounds existed to base a criticism of Sampras and where he stands in relation to Federer. This is another example of attacking anyone held high regard who happens not to be your false "god.".
Oh, you mean Laver--the one who won the Grand Slam--the ultimate tennis accomplishment Federer could not even come close to on his best day. Yes...that Laver.
Those records just scratch the surface of his what he's achieved.
I'll try
A Grand Slam against Amateurs.
Another in a weak era against weak pros.
That's it.
How can Federer be the greatest of all time if Nadal in this era alone is already beating him 8-2 in slams on 3 different surfaces, and Nadal is not even the greatest of all time? Imagine what would guys like Sampras,Laver, Borg, Pancho, etc. would do to Federer. In fact, Federer is not even the best of his own era, Nadal is.
And don't forget Nadal has to win 34 slams to surpass Sampras.
*******s love to quote others about how good Federer is, but as soon as Sampras says something about Federer losing to his greatest rival, all up in arms. Way to stir the pot, this thread is 17 pages already and growing strong.
Refer to my “Why the GOAT does not exist” thread, it sums up the GOAT, or lack thereof perfectly. Unless Federer can address the deficit, history will always judge him as the man who was Nadal’s little *****. Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.
Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:
• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.
You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.
.
blah .. blah.. blah...
Some of you talk about Sampras as if he is some tennis hack, as if he is in no man’s land as far as tennis history is concerned. To those that think he is a hack, here is a reminder of his resume:
• Only man to make 7 or more slam finals in at least 2 of the 4 slams.
• Undefeated in the final at Wimbledon.
• During his prime years, owned or equalled his rivals in the H2H slams. Please note, prime years, so losses to Edberg, Safin and Hewitt don’t count. And just for the record, he’s 1-0 against Stich in the slams and 1-1 against Krajicek in slams.
• Dominated his era moreso than any other era champion.
• Record 6 years ending number 1.
You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.
So if you think the above equates to a tennis hack which renders Sampras in no man's land, then you’re an idiot.
blah blah blah ...
It was also 3 on grass and 1 on clay. But according to smoledman, Fed's zillions records only scratch the surface of Laver's achievement.
No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business/ Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed had never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
For Nadal to dominate his era to an extent as Sampras did, Nadal has to compile twice more slam count than his nearest rival, Federer. I don't think he will ever achieve it, but he can try.
i think you may have misunderstood smoldeman (or i might have ) -- i understood that he meant that the records that you quoted for Federer are just a few of the many of the other records he owns..
*applause*
can't believe vernoquiem has come to the defense of Federer; in any case, huge props
I have subjective preferences but I'm super honest about records. No way around facts, no cheating allowed. Otherwise, where would be the glory at achieving anything?
No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
Comparing Fed to other players, you support him, but comparing him to Nadal, you knock him down. You don't have to explain, we already know why.:-|
It would still leave him in front of Sampras.Eventually someone will overtake 17 slams, but Federer’s poor H2H record against Nadal will stand for all time. Where does that leave Federer? Because the way some of you tennis 'gurus' talk about Sampras, that will leave Federer in no man’s land.
You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.You see, I can talk statistics to suit Sampras as much as you can talk statistics to suit Federer.
If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.Talk all you like about beating the field, but at the end of the day, the GREATEST OF ALL TIME must also be able to beat any player in history at least 2 times out of 3 on 3 different surfaces. Live with it, it’s the truth.
It would still leave him in front of Sampras.You can talk, but Federers statistics are clearly better.
If Nadal was close to Federer in claim for goat, this would be relevant, not as it is.
No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.
No you can't and that's the problem. Sampras is not a tennis hack at all. He's one of the tennis greats. However, his achievements do not measure up to Fed's and I don't see that as arguable. Only man to make 7 finals or more at 2 slams? But that's nothing compared to winning 4 titles or more at 3 out of the 4 slams, winning every slam and making 5 finals or more at all slams. I'm sure deep down you're aware that all of Fed's stats in slams are superior to Sampras's. Undefeated in final at Wimbledon? But Fed was undefeated in Wimbledon's final as often as Sampras was and he made 1 more final there. Making an extra final is not a weakness, it's a bonus even if he lost it. A slam final is better than no final at all, 8 finals is better than 7. Record 6 years ending at #1? Sure, that's great but most weeks at # 1 is as important if not more. That head to head business, Who cares if the guy is gonna beat every record anyway? It doesn't trump overall winning %, most titles, most masters, most slams, most WTF. Of course it doesn't, how could it? And it's not like Fed has never beaten Nadal, even on clay. He leads their head to head in some events like Wimby and WTF and didn't even get to play him in other events. That would only be important if it had stopped Fed from winning 17 slams and 21 masters and 6 WTF but it didn't. I am not a Fed fan. I'm a Nadal fan. But there is no case to be made about Sampras being greater than Fed. There was in the past but not now. Whether it was only due to talent or luck or something else, it doesn't matter. Sampras is a great player but Fed has the greater achievements.
İf Fed is goat so Margeret Court in women tennis.
Anybody believes Court better than Graf and Navratilova seriosly ???
Fed won 17 majors during the weakest era in mens tennis.
Court won 11 AO titles when AO field was weak,thats why she won record 24 GS titles.Both of them arent the best ever.
Honestly, who has Fed lost to outside Nadal (and that was extremely close) in the finals? I think you're splitting hairs. There really isn't much difference in terms of achievements between Sampras and Federer. You want to argue Sampras played at a higher level? Go ahead. Granted, Sampras was much more explosive on grass. But he also played in a different set of conditions. The one time that Federer and Sampras met, Federer won playing Pete's game (almost). And if Sampras was old, Federer was still not at his best, playing his first ever match on Wimbledon CC. Nobody expected him to win that encounter. Now, this doesn't tell us that Federer is significantly better than Sampras but it does tell us that the man is capable of adapting his play and could very well have done the same in any "era."In Sampras' day, and in the days before Sampras, the first week was always a big risk. Just look at the recent history of Wimbledon.
Lewis making the final in 83
Curren making the final in 85
Doohan knocking off the 2 time champ Becker in Round 2
The way the grass is now, and the way the game is played now, you won't find these journeymen who are damn good grass courters causing upsets.
At Wimbledon, Sampras was always suspect in the first week and a bit. However, once he got 5 or 6 matches under his belt and was in the zone, he was unbeatable. Plain and simply, unbeatable. Same can't be said for Fed.
In Sampras' day, and in the days before Sampras, the first week was always a big risk. Just look at the recent history of Wimbledon.
Lewis making the final in 83
Curren making the final in 85
Doohan knocking off the 2 time champ Becker in Round 2
The way the grass is now, and the way the game is played now, you won't find these journeymen who are damn good grass courters causing upsets.
At Wimbledon, Sampras was always suspect in the first week and a bit. However, once he got 5 or 6 matches under his belt and was in the zone, he was unbeatable. Plain and simply, unbeatable. Same can't be said for Fed.
But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.
Not really, no.
Borg for example has fewer slam wins than Sampras but notice Laver still put him ahead on his official tennis great ranking list, not to mention that being ranked #3 in the Open Era hardly means you're nothing (it's a great achievement).
Of course, classy humble gentleman that he is, Laver refused to rank himself instead of proclaiming himself as the greatest ever (which shows a combination of arrogance and insecurity) but we all know no one is above him as a player (nor as a tennis analyst).
Federer has a host of other records in case you forgot, PLUS a subjective quality of play that is extremely highly regarded by many.But the way some people on here carry on, ie you either have the most slam wins or you're nothing, would not mean much now would it.