tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?
How could someone call Sampras the Goat
- Thread starter tennisbuck
- Start date
bluescreen
Hall of Fame
This is really beating a dead horse, but here goes.
Most of the Sampras argument stems from his h2h against his rivals and the notion that Sampras' era of players was "better" than today's era. The idea is that the players Sampras often had to beat were slam winners and "A list" players, while most of the players Federer has had to go through are somehow "lesser" players except for Nadal.
Most of the Sampras argument stems from his h2h against his rivals and the notion that Sampras' era of players was "better" than today's era. The idea is that the players Sampras often had to beat were slam winners and "A list" players, while most of the players Federer has had to go through are somehow "lesser" players except for Nadal.
90's Clay
Banned
A hands down GOAT does.. Yes. Thus why Fed is only in the GOAT "discussion" not given the hands down label.
How can you be a hands down GOAT when your rival has owned your arseee your entire career?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
This needs to be the signature of all Sampra fans.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
The TW scale of GOATS (in descending order of GOATness)
[Based on the collected wisdom of TW armchair critics]
1. Nadal
2. the GOAT = undisputed GOAT = hands down GOAT
3. Open Era GOAT
4. in-discussion GOAT
5. probable GOAT = GOAT candidate
6. surface GOAT
7. transition GOAT
8. slow-grass GOAT
9. fast-grass GOAT
10. joke grass GOAT
11. HC GOAT
12. clay GOAT (generally = red clay GOAT)
13. blue clay GOAT
14. Plexicushion GOAT
15. one-slam-wonder GOAT
16. slamless GOAT
17. not GOAT
18. joke GOAT
19. Federer
[Based on the collected wisdom of TW armchair critics]
1. Nadal
2. the GOAT = undisputed GOAT = hands down GOAT
3. Open Era GOAT
4. in-discussion GOAT
5. probable GOAT = GOAT candidate
6. surface GOAT
7. transition GOAT
8. slow-grass GOAT
9. fast-grass GOAT
10. joke grass GOAT
11. HC GOAT
12. clay GOAT (generally = red clay GOAT)
13. blue clay GOAT
14. Plexicushion GOAT
15. one-slam-wonder GOAT
16. slamless GOAT
17. not GOAT
18. joke GOAT
19. Federer
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Owned on clay, Federer leads off it; go back into your cave troll. The whole board is wise to your crap.
J
JRAJ1988
Guest
Surely the competitor with the most slams is the GOAT? Though Tomas Johansson won the AO in 2002 did that make him better than Nalbandian?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Better career maybe but not greater. Federer isn't a one slam wonder though and he has plethora of other records. Having said that Sampras deserves to spoken of when talking about medium-fast surfaces. I don't think Sampras should be forgotten, but there's no question Federer is greater.
Except when there is a poll, 90% of posters pick Federer. Just a couple of insecure people start all these threads.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Exactly. Federer will always have that stigma around his career, and it is why he will never be given the title of undisputed GOAT as much as his fanboys are desperate to push that onto him.
As for the ****s who bring out the tired old clay court excuse Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal in slams on clay, 2-3 on slams off clay (meaning they played as many slams off clay as on, and Federer trails even off clay in slams, lol), 2-8 in slams overall, and was 27 or younger for all but 2 of those 10 meetings. Federer is Nadal's beetch plain and simple. It doesnt make Nadal GOAT, but it does bring into heavy question whether Federer is. None of Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Tilden, even Rosewall were "owned" by anyone. They were too good for that (PS- Rosewall has quite respectable head to heads vs both Gonzales and Laver so he wasnt owned).
President
Legend
I don't understand it myself, great player yes but there's no way anyone can call Petros the GOAT. Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, even Bjorn Borg have respectable reasons to call them the GOAT. Pete Sampras was just like Roger Federer 0.5, Fed is better in almost every way and takes Petros out of the GOAT discussion.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
So Federer has a better first and second serve, better volleys, better overhead, greater vertical leap, a better running forehand? Hardly, Federer's game isnt even that similar to Sampras, but there are many things Sampras does better than Federer (and things Federer does better than Sampras too of course).
President
Legend
I was talking about their career, although I think as a player Federer is much more well rounded as well and a better player at his best.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Because Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all time and tennis historians consider more than just raw stats when they debate about who the GOAT is, which makes the whole GOAT issue subjective. Bud Collins contends that even though Federer broke all the records, Sampras's peak form was greater than Federer's.
Everyone has their faults. Despite the head-to-head with Nadal, Federer has destroyed pretty much every other record Sampras held, except for the six year-end no. 1 finishes. Other than that, Federer is superior in every single way. More slams, more Masters, more WTFs, more tournaments, more weeks at number one, more dominance, better longevity, etc. I agree that Federer is not the GOAT, but the argument for Sampras has fallen by the wayside, and that's what this thread is about.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Nobody can be given a hands down GOAT label anyway. Not Federer, not Sampras, not Nadal, not Laver, etc... Otherwise you'd have a "perfect" player, but I think if you did a worldwide poll you'd find that the consensus (at least for now) is Federer, if of course you believe in that kind of thing (and I could see why someone wouldn't.) In essence, Federer is tops or tied in the most important categories, so he is the closest to "perfect."
In regards to the topic, I don't know how it can be Sampras. IMO it can't ever be Sampras now, but that's because Federer broke pretty much every record he had, and he played in an era too similar to Federer's when compared to say the difference between Federer and Laver's era, which is why some people understandably don't believe in the GOAT concept. It's also why everybody that doesn't believe Federer is the GOAT says it's Laver, because it can't be Sampras in most people's eyes, thanks to Federer, and the conditions were so different that it's impossible to compare, so they stick to their opinion and I stick to mine. Both are fine, and Sampras was a great player in his own right which some people don't give due credit to IMHO which is really too bad. And everybody knows why that is. All comes back to Federer having a better list of accomplishments again in most people's eyes.
In regards to the topic, I don't know how it can be Sampras. IMO it can't ever be Sampras now, but that's because Federer broke pretty much every record he had, and he played in an era too similar to Federer's when compared to say the difference between Federer and Laver's era, which is why some people understandably don't believe in the GOAT concept. It's also why everybody that doesn't believe Federer is the GOAT says it's Laver, because it can't be Sampras in most people's eyes, thanks to Federer, and the conditions were so different that it's impossible to compare, so they stick to their opinion and I stick to mine. Both are fine, and Sampras was a great player in his own right which some people don't give due credit to IMHO which is really too bad. And everybody knows why that is. All comes back to Federer having a better list of accomplishments again in most people's eyes.
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Man, you must spend a lot of time on the floor. How do you find the time to post?
The-Champ
Legend
Even Nadal is not that great. Nadal is just a one-dimensional player according to Federer himself.
If I have to find it. It should be out of records he holds and how long it will last.
6 straight year-end (official) #1. No one has it in the history.
Panchp Gonzales, Laver had 7-8 years at #1, I think but I'm not sure if they were "official".
Mustard
Bionic Poster
There were no official world rankings before 1973.
always_crosscourt
Banned
Why aren't Krajicek and Bruguera the GOATs, then?
Riddle me that, punk? Both slam winners or multiple slam winners with a winning H2H against Sampras.
Right, I think it was "voted" by professional tennis association or something?
it's a logic and facts allergic group that often changes goal posts to keep Pete in the GOAT discussion, though as of last Wimbledon, it would appear that they've run out of space to rearrange the goal post:
- when you point out Pete's relatively poor win/loss ratio for his best years, the response is "he only cared about slams"
- when you point out that as of wimby 2009, Pete is no longer the slam leader, the response is "ah, but slams aren't everything. you have to look at competition"
- when you point out that the supposed stronger era that Pete played in consisted of former over-the-hill greats, and a main "rival" who was doing meth during Pete's prime, the response usually consists of either silence or an unsubstantiated "but.. but... they're better than Federer's opponents"
- when you point out the career slam, the usual response is "homogenized conditions made it possible".
- when you point out that if conditions now are homogeneous (all slams playing closer to clay), then Pete would stand no chance in today's conditions, usual response is "but great players adapt"
- when you point out that Pete never adapted to clay during his heyday, the response is usually silence..
the latest goal post is "h2h" against your "main rival". apparently, Federer lacks in it. what I hear them say is that if Federer had put together Sampras-esque clay numbers, he would have a h2h lead over Nadal (not sure why Nadal, who is 5 yrs his junior, is his "main" rival -- he has played 20+ matches against a few of his rivals who were of the same age).
Because stupid commentator (in the 90s) always want to hype things and sell that the present players/present era are the best thing since sliced bread.
I laughted out loud in the 90s when I listened to them so many times saying that Sampras was probably the GOAT, and now they do exactly the same thing with Federer.
It is impossible to compare numbers from different eras, because then you'd say that Sampras was "better" than Lendl or McEnroe, or you'd say that Federer is "better" than Lendl or Borg. And it doesn't make any sense, because you are talking about players that played in different eras, against different players, on different conditions.
Nobody has a clue about how many GS would Federer have won in the 70s (had he been born 40 years early), it could be 20 GS or it could be 5 GS, nobody knows.
Nobody has a clue about how many GS (or YE nº1) would Lendl (or Borg, or Laver) have won in the current era (had anyone of them been born some decades later). Nobody knows.
We can, at best, guess that the best one or two best ones players from one era would be great in any other era, but even that we can not be absolutely sure, and we don't know what numbers would they get in any other era (conditions are not the same now than in the past, today fewer players win GS tournaments and because of that those few ones win a higher nº of GS than in the past when totally polarized conditions and different playing styles meant more different GS champions and obviously less players winning 10+ GS/lower nº of GS for the great ones of previous eras).
Sampras was the best player of his era, the best thing a tennis player can be, just like Pancho Gonzales was the best player from a given era, Lendl was the best player from a given era, Federer is the best player from the current era,...
Unless somebody creates an "alternative universes computer simulation", trying to compare players or numbers from different tennis eras is senseless.
I laughted out loud in the 90s when I listened to them so many times saying that Sampras was probably the GOAT, and now they do exactly the same thing with Federer.
It is impossible to compare numbers from different eras, because then you'd say that Sampras was "better" than Lendl or McEnroe, or you'd say that Federer is "better" than Lendl or Borg. And it doesn't make any sense, because you are talking about players that played in different eras, against different players, on different conditions.
Nobody has a clue about how many GS would Federer have won in the 70s (had he been born 40 years early), it could be 20 GS or it could be 5 GS, nobody knows.
Nobody has a clue about how many GS (or YE nº1) would Lendl (or Borg, or Laver) have won in the current era (had anyone of them been born some decades later). Nobody knows.
We can, at best, guess that the best one or two best ones players from one era would be great in any other era, but even that we can not be absolutely sure, and we don't know what numbers would they get in any other era (conditions are not the same now than in the past, today fewer players win GS tournaments and because of that those few ones win a higher nº of GS than in the past when totally polarized conditions and different playing styles meant more different GS champions and obviously less players winning 10+ GS/lower nº of GS for the great ones of previous eras).
Sampras was the best player of his era, the best thing a tennis player can be, just like Pancho Gonzales was the best player from a given era, Lendl was the best player from a given era, Federer is the best player from the current era,...
Unless somebody creates an "alternative universes computer simulation", trying to compare players or numbers from different tennis eras is senseless.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
As of 2009, nobody can.
/end thread
/end thread
DeShaun
Banned
Pete definitely kept to himself more than Roger in terms of shouldering ambassadorial chores on the sport's behalf. Pete was rather driven by individualistic goals: to surpass Emerson's slam count above all else, and to retain the year end number one ranking. That's it...period...that was basically all that Pete ever aimed for. But he accomplished both goals with aplomb in my opinion. So, he belongs in the GOAT discussion for his having held (but only for a short period in terms of "ALL TIME" greatness) two of the most important records by which tennis' great champions are measured.
Due mostly to the weakness of transitive arguments, however, the fact that Pete owned his main rival holds very little value in my opinion because, you can only play the guy in front of you and you cannot control the current shape of the field that it is your job in part to tame if you're to be one of the GOATs.
This all may sound very convenient for Fedfans wishing to excuse Rafa's ownership of Roger first on clay, and then off of clay in slams as Roger got older. Well, Roger is not Agassi by any objective measure, and Rafa's H2H over Roger enhances Rafa's resume much more than Pete's over Andre enhances Pete's, notwithstanding the fact that, when parsed according to surface, Rafa's H2H over Roger suddenly looks pedestrian except for their numerous matches played on clay--but I believe Rafa is the greatest clay court player ever (although I do not place Borg so far below Rafa as other people do...Rafa and Borg are almost neck and neck IMO).
Getting back to my initial point, Roger seems to do a lot more for the promotion of the tennis than Pete ever did, while at the same time eclipsing every one of Pete's records. Roger is beloved the world over and people seem to feel comfortable with him being the figurehead that he has become. For this reason, he has cemented an ethos in the hearts and minds of millions in a manner that someone who is comparatively taciturn and arguably more self-driven like Sampras can never match. This may explain how Pete so quickly fell from the pedestal that he worked so single-mindedly to place himself on...and now, all that Pete has left are fifty million dollars in the bank the hope of continuing to be spoken of in the same breath as some guys whom he had hoped to be seen as towering above in perpetuity...is that karma for him not giving back? Even his trophies were stolen!
Due mostly to the weakness of transitive arguments, however, the fact that Pete owned his main rival holds very little value in my opinion because, you can only play the guy in front of you and you cannot control the current shape of the field that it is your job in part to tame if you're to be one of the GOATs.
This all may sound very convenient for Fedfans wishing to excuse Rafa's ownership of Roger first on clay, and then off of clay in slams as Roger got older. Well, Roger is not Agassi by any objective measure, and Rafa's H2H over Roger enhances Rafa's resume much more than Pete's over Andre enhances Pete's, notwithstanding the fact that, when parsed according to surface, Rafa's H2H over Roger suddenly looks pedestrian except for their numerous matches played on clay--but I believe Rafa is the greatest clay court player ever (although I do not place Borg so far below Rafa as other people do...Rafa and Borg are almost neck and neck IMO).
Getting back to my initial point, Roger seems to do a lot more for the promotion of the tennis than Pete ever did, while at the same time eclipsing every one of Pete's records. Roger is beloved the world over and people seem to feel comfortable with him being the figurehead that he has become. For this reason, he has cemented an ethos in the hearts and minds of millions in a manner that someone who is comparatively taciturn and arguably more self-driven like Sampras can never match. This may explain how Pete so quickly fell from the pedestal that he worked so single-mindedly to place himself on...and now, all that Pete has left are fifty million dollars in the bank the hope of continuing to be spoken of in the same breath as some guys whom he had hoped to be seen as towering above in perpetuity...is that karma for him not giving back? Even his trophies were stolen!
Last edited:
Because they're just ridiculous, that's why. The winning h2h thing is silly. It's not Federer's fault that he's the second best clay courter of this era so that when he gets in deep and has to play the best clay courter ever, he ends up losing. Nadal is a great: he beat Fed at the AO and Wimbledon as well. If you're able to remain at the top of the game for getting close to 10 years now vs. your rival who has taken multiple-month down-times due to injury, then you really kinda are the better player. Everyone has a foil, and Sampras had his. The fact that his main rival was all over the place doesn't exactly bode well in the discussion about the h2h factor.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
it boils down to what a player is trying to accomplish on tour. if the answer is to win as many of the biggest tournaments as possible, win the most money, and hold a position at the top of the sport for as long as possible, then you have your answer.
if your objective is to eventually identify some as-yet-to-be-named arch nemesis and achieve a winning record against that player, then maybe you've got a case for nadal. but if we took a poll among past and present tour members as to which goal they'd prefer to accomplish during their career, i know where i'd put my money.
honestly this is an absurd argument. having to scurry off into the marginalia to unearth tortured shreds of logic to defend a position that's refuted by every commonly accepted metric of success should tell you you're on the losing side of history. i'd prefer my legacy not be written in the liner notes, but that's just me.
if your objective is to eventually identify some as-yet-to-be-named arch nemesis and achieve a winning record against that player, then maybe you've got a case for nadal. but if we took a poll among past and present tour members as to which goal they'd prefer to accomplish during their career, i know where i'd put my money.
honestly this is an absurd argument. having to scurry off into the marginalia to unearth tortured shreds of logic to defend a position that's refuted by every commonly accepted metric of success should tell you you're on the losing side of history. i'd prefer my legacy not be written in the liner notes, but that's just me.
General concensus thus is to look at # of slams and years at #1.
# of slams can vary depending on era, due to many different situations.
so we have to look how dominant the player was and for how long...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Sampras was my favourite player growing up and I still consider him a legend both for his attacking style and the way he gunned for the sport's biggest records and achieved them. *
Nevertheless there is no way I can rank Pete ahead of either Fed or Laver. He just wasn't complete enough a player and never won the French.
* P.S. I do realise that the "slam count" is not as impressive as Pete thought it was due to the absence of Gonzales/Rosewall/Laver etc. for large periods of their career.
Nevertheless there is no way I can rank Pete ahead of either Fed or Laver. He just wasn't complete enough a player and never won the French.
* P.S. I do realise that the "slam count" is not as impressive as Pete thought it was due to the absence of Gonzales/Rosewall/Laver etc. for large periods of their career.
forzamilan90
Legend
+ infinity
dxdgenert
New User
Well thought out and nicely stated. I couldn't agree more.
good post. there is also the simple fact that Federer is a better tennis player than Sampras....
always_crosscourt
Banned
I can't stand to read your pretentious drivel.
You're not writing a university dissertation, you're poasting in a tennis forum.
DeShaun
Banned
I am sorry for your sense of a barrier. I am very good at editing and revising--in fact, that is a task I enjoy more than you will ever know--but my first drafts really are atrocious, I concede. When I'm thinking out loud my only objective is not stylistic but simply to capture ideas in the most logical manner that I can; and often the initial result comes across as sounding stilted...but that is never my intent.
Yea Pete was great on clay! Pete is GREAT, but there is a huge difference in surfaces. If he played on todays slow surfaces he'd be in trouble, big trouble.
Fed managed to adapt and still hold a winning record against his opponents, Nadal? Yea take away clay, have Fed not play RG like Conners, and Fed is leading Nadal.
Don't just compare era's with era's, but conditions, court surfaces, equipement, etc.
DeShaun
Banned
Pete defeated Federer on "today's" surfaces in an exo, remember. I know that was just an exo, but it seemed that there were times during the match when Pete's slots on his ground strokes were really finding their mark, despite that Roger seemed at times to be trying earnestly to silence Pete's game. If Pete were a young man peaking today, I believe that he actually could boss a few of today's top ten around off the ground, to say nothing of his serve.
Sampras had all the qualities of a great player and was better on clay than people like to give him credit for. I'm sure he would have put forth more of an effort to win the French had he known how important it would be to his legacy. Roger on the other hand is great in the talent and stats department, but not so much when it comes to champion qualities when compared to a player like Pete. And it's qualities like that which determine ones greatness in the opinion of most.
N
nikdom
Guest
I can make a case. Pete is more hairy, thus making him a much closer Goat candidate.
DeShaun
Banned
What are these "champion qualities?"
Because anyone that saw him play at his best knows that he was virtually unbeatable. There are accomplishments, where Federer arguably stands alone, and then there is level of play. Personally, I think Fed's best level beats Pete's best level, but others disagree. If they're right, then Pete might be the greatest. I think that's how the argument would go. (I don't buy the strength of competition argument because I think Fed would have dominated Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera just as Pete did, or to an even greater degree.) Ultimately it's all just opinion anyway. I mean, how the hell would I know that Fed dominates Becker?
tennis_badger
Rookie
nadal is more of a GOAT candidate than pete
zagor
Bionic Poster
Given that the whole GOAT topic is quite subjective and that Sampras is one of the greatest players of all time don't see why this is so perplexing to some? The man was a terrific player.
Personally, I consider Fed to be a better player but Sampras is certainly a valid choice.
Personally, I consider Fed to be a better player but Sampras is certainly a valid choice.
zagor
Bionic Poster
His idol was Rod Laver whose most celebrated accomplishment was winning Calendar Grand Slam (twice) so disagree, I'm sure Sampras wanted the FO and knew it's importance, he just wasn't good enough on that surface.
Also Fed wouldn't be so great in the "stats department" if he didn't posses a lot of champion qualities himself, talent alone is not enough to achieve so much in the game.
Wait until about 10 years after Federer retires.
Then we will start to know what Federer's achievements are about....
tennis_badger
Rookie
lol, hillarious, 17 GS champion and all those records he broke and you're saying he doesnt have a champion qualities? yeah, those wins are just fluke...
Similar threads
