It depends what you value. 6 years of being #1 is huge to me. The value of different tournaments, even slams changes with time. In fact, it was Sampras passing Emerson's record (which no one had particularly noted before then) that made winning slams particularly important.
Sampras by a mile.
As I said, it depends what you value. How many times was Nadal year-end #1?
Pete for now, though it's very close. Expect Rafa to overtake before his career is done.
Nadal is greater than Sampras by some margin.
Despite having pathetic competition for almost 50% of his career, Pete is barely ahead of Nadal in the slam count, and that should tell something. That you can suck for 1/4 of the season and still end up #1 (barely edging out no-slam winners along the way) should call into questioning this very comparison. I'm not even going to mention clay. If I were a Pete fan, and am honest, I'd be grateful with Pete's place in history (Tier II great) and not throw his name in the hat with the big boys. It gets quite ugly very fast.
Nadal has the h2h advantage over his greatest rival, much more than Pete did against his, so the nod should go to Nadal (this is not my criterion - it's what the Pete fans came up with for why Federer cannot be greater than Sampras), yet we have many posts arguing Pete to be the greater one. Funny how the goal posts keep moving with the Pete fans...
Raffer, given the caliber of his competition.
Pete's playing style is more fun to watch though.
Both are the two mentally strongest players in history.
Bitter Fed fan talking down on Sampras huh? Now, that's something new! :twisted:
The term was coined because of Agassi and the general marketing hype around him. In reality, many players then didn't give a crap about it. Federer cared about it for obvious reasons-his chances (or rather Switzerland's chances) of winning DC have always been bleak. Still, he has medals in both singles and doubles which is not bad at all especially given that he doesn't play much doubles.Tell that to ATP & the worldwide experts & commentators, who call a particular achievement the "Career Golden Slam"!
Hey, they club Slams & Olympics together. That should tell you something about it's importance.
.
Nadal major highlights:
* 13 grand slam titles
* career slam
* 26 MS
* 62 single titles
Sampras major highlights:
* 14 grand slams titles
* 285 weeks at #1
* 6 years #1
* 64 single titles
You freaking clown. You're dumb man. Dumb.
Oh and Fed Rulz...you're a queer.
^ This +100. And so typical of a know nothing, one-track-mind fanboy punk.just my 2 gold cents..
Nice attempt of pinning Sampras & Nadal fans against each other. Divide & Rule policy, no? :roll:
Haha. And what's even more pathetic and revealing is that the fanboy coward doesn't even have the stones to vote on his own instigating thread, the punk.TMF is biased. LOL
I challenge you to refute one thing I said you imbecile. Go have a look at the way Sampras played the game and then get back to me and tell me how you would expect Nadal, with his dodgy knees, to handle Sampras' game. Sampras' game would be the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to Nadal's knees...start stop, start stop, chasing vollies and drop shots, second guessing second serves (I won't even bother mentioning the first serve because Nadal would be clueless) and being wrong footed constantly.
LOL you live in la la land. Your problem is, you're so used to seeing Nadal play duds and his little lamb Federer, that you think he would just breeze past Sampras. Sampras would be a raging bull against Nadal. I repeat what I said in the post that you quoted, look at how Nadal handled (or lack thereof) Wawrinka in the first set of the AO final when Wawrinka served and volleyed and then ask yourself how he would handle Sampras.
And one other thing...the two players who gave prime Sampras the most trouble in big matches were players who played his own style...big serving and volleying...Krajicek and Stich. Sampras pretty much, on the whole, dominated baseliners. Now tell me how many serve volleyers Nadal has had to contend with in his career. One, maybe two, max, and I include Tsonga in those two. Sampras has seen the likes of Nadal before, but Nadal has never quite had to contend with the likes of Sampras before.
You freaking clown. You're dumb man. Dumb.
Oh and Fed Rulz...you're a queer.
Oh and Fed Rulz...you're a queer.
I find it really interesting that you don't list Sampras 5 WTF wins, even though you list Nadal Masters 1000's, even though the Masters 1000's are a lesser event compared to the WTF.
Sampras by far. He ended 14-4 in slam finals with the 4 losses coming to players who were multiple slam winners and eventual #1s like Edberg, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt. Sampras had many more weeks as #1 than Nadal, many more YECs and many more WTF.
I agree timnz. I didn't list the 5 WTF doesn't mean that I wasn't aware that it's an incredible achievements. Had I went through and made a long list of their achievements, of course the WTFs would be on the list. The initial post is to kick start the debate by letting other members fill in.
I know you have Sampras above Nadal, and stated your reasons. I've no quarrel against anyone who pick one over the other, but annoyed by a few fans who think Nadal can't hold Sampras's jock strap.
Actually I have the two very close. The question to reflect on for me is does Nadals 26 Masters 1000's counter Sampras' 5 WTF's (and 11 Masters 1000's).....it is an interesting question, not sure I know the answer. The other thing is that Sampras dominated (won at least 4 each ) 3 out of the 5 top titles, whereas Nadal has just dominated 1 out of the top 5 events.
I had Nadal at tier 2 until august/sept 2013... But then he got to 26 Masters 1000's - that was just too great an achievement to be denied...hence he is now in tier 1 in my mind...amongst Sampras and Borg...not sure what order to put them subjectively. In my ranking list based on objective tournament achievements weighted at current ATP POINTS - i have Nadal ahead of Sampras and Borg. Sampras' lack of Masters 1000 hurt him in that list.
Actually I have the two very close. The question to reflect on for me is does Nadals 26 Masters 1000's counter Sampras' 5 WTF's (and 11 Masters 1000's).....it is an interesting question, not sure I know the answer. The other thing is that Sampras dominated (won at least 4 each ) 3 out of the 5 top titles, whereas Nadal has just dominated 1 out of the top 5 events.
I had Nadal at tier 2 until august/sept 2013... But then he got to 26 Masters 1000's - that was just too great an achievement to be denied...hence he is now in tier 1 in my mind...amongst Sampras and Borg...not sure what order to put them subjectively. In my ranking list based on objective tournament achievements weighted at current ATP POINTS - i have Nadal ahead of Sampras and Borg. Sampras' lack of Masters 1000 hurt him in that list.
With all due respect, I think that's kind of a silly argument considering that Nadal has utterly dominated the "rivalry" with Federer. Sampras had a winning record over Agassi sure, but it wasn't nearly as one sided. Agassi was closer to Sampras than Federer is to Nadal. And still, Sampras was able to finish 6 consecutive years at world number 1.RNadal, but by a very small margin.
PSampras didn't have anyone of RFederer's caliber to deal with. Plus, he has won all 4 slams and has a record # of masters titles although PSampras does have a huge lead in time spent at #1 and YECs. Overall, a very small edge to RNadal.
With all due respect, I think that's kind of a silly argument considering that Nadal has utterly dominated the "rivalry" with Federer. Sampras had a winning record over Agassi sure, but it wasn't nearly as one sided. Agassi was closer to Sampras than Federer is to Nadal. And still, Sampras was able to finish 6 consecutive years at world number 1.
Before I weigh in on this debate, I would like to declare I am an equal opportunity fan. I enjoy all types of competitive tennis and styles.
To me, Nadal along with Novak are probably two of the most competitive and sound minded pros on tour. (Meaning they don't get high on themselves, which IMO Sampras, Fed do.)
Who is greater, Sampras or Nadal? I like Sampras style of play. He's got game. I like Nadal's competitiveness and his relentlessness. Mastery of all surfaces is Nadal.
Unfortunately the two never met, maybe in the seniors?
I'd imagine Sampras probably could take Nadal if he could handle the high moonballs. Provided both are at their prime.
At this point, it is anyone's guess.
Maybe Nadal if his body doesn't collapse.
Debatable on the easier competition in my opinion.It's tough to compare them. They were playing in different conditions.
Rafa was helped a lot by homogenization. But Sampras had easier competition and wasn't good on clay, but in contrast he dominated other stuff a lot more than Rafa.
I would say they seem pretty equal. Djokovic is on the level of Agassi probably.
It's crazy, that Fed had to deal with Sampras and Agassi equivalents next to old Agassi himself, Hewitt, Murray, Roddick, Ferrero, Safin...
And still won the most vs this crazy competition. Fed was a bit unlucky he had to deal with such champions, that's the only reason he underachieved a bit.
Debatable on the easier competition in my opinion.
Yeah, I agree. Stuff like competition can't be proven 100%.
We have objective way of comparing greats, like numbers, which can't be debated.
And we have subjective ways like competition, homogenization, other conditions, which can be debated.
Everything is subjective when we compare 2 players from very different eras. These kinds of threads should be moved to tennis fantasy land forum.
RNadal, but by a very small margin.
PSampras didn't have anyone of RFederer's caliber to deal with. Plus, he has won all 4 slams and has a record # of masters titles although PSampras does have a huge lead in time spent at #1 and YECs. Overall, a very small edge to RNadal.
I guess you forgot about a guy named Agassi.
I guess you forgot about a guy named Agassi.