I think, Pete Sampras fell victim for his own hype of the 'magical' number of 14 majors won. With the Wimbledon result his own legacy is a bit tarnished now. But with a bit hindsight by himself or some decent commentators, there should have been some reservations. 14 was good, but not that unsurpassable. Borg won 11, and he retired with 26 and only once played the AO. Rosewall won 8, and was out for 11 of his best years. Laver had 11, with some 21 majors in between, when he couldn't play. Tilden won 10, even without playing Wim, Australian or French in his prime years. So the majors number was quite modern concept of evaluating greats. I always thought, that Sampras' best record was his year end Nr. 1 record. This and especially this record puts him in a class of Players like Tilden, Gonzales, Laver, who were world champions for such a long period. The 14, as i said is tremendous, and Federer has many more records and stats for himself. But for a moment look at the women. How many have won 18 major or more? But how many stayed Nr. 1 for 6 years?
14 or 6? Sampras' legacy
- Thread starter urban
- Start date
Bhagi Katbamna
Legend
Yeah. I agree with this. Not to mention that while Emerson was considered a good player, he was nowhere near well regarded as Laver. Also, most of the top pros didn't even go to play the Australian Open.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Sampras never had anyone to challenge his #1 ranking as strongly as Nadal challenged Federer's #1 ranking and gained it. Just as some people downgrade Federer's 15 slams with the competition argument, the competition argument, lack of, counts against Pete's 6 straight years @ #1.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think you may be right. Sampras' greatest record may very well be his six straight years at year end number one. It shows his great consistency and his ability to come up big when it counts.
FedFan_2009
Banned
That 6 years of year end #1 is misleading. How many weeks of those 6 years was he #1? Frankly I'm not very impressed by this record.
J
Jchurch
Guest
You do realize that Federer was number 1 for 237 CONSECUTIVE weeks right. Sampras' longest reign at number 1 was 102 weeks.
GameSampras
Banned
So we should fault Pete for being the greatest grass court player that ever lived? Pete was number 1 for six year because he stepped up and beat those he needed to when he had to.
14 is definitely passable. But at the same time, all it takes is for someone to dominate his/her era. Records were meant to be broke. And there will be someone who comes along who dominates just as Fed and Pete did. Pete didnt have such a poor h2h against his rival as Fed has which no doubt his a blemish on his resume as is Pete not winning RG. There will be someone who comes along even more dominant than these two. Its the nature of sports.
Last edited:
GameSampras
Banned
The same Nadal who for years couldnt even reach a semis of a HC slam? Hell Agassi was good on every surface and could win anywheres. Nadal hasnt even proved that yet.
deltox
Hall of Fame
i agree here, sampras was only number 1 at the end of each year because he was awesome on grass and loved the hc season, he lost the #1 ranking during clay season many many years.
consecutive weeks at #1 > year ends at #1 for me
ROTFL!! Nadal at only 22 was already a grand slam champion on hard courts and an Olympic Champion on hard courts. Agassi didnt win anything on clay until his French title at age 29, he didnt win Rome for the only time until 32, and never won Monte Carlo, or anything else of note. With all his Masters titles Nadal has probably already achieved more on hard courts at a very young age than Agassi ever has on clay his whole career.
Nadal took until 21 to reach his first slam semi on hard courts? Well Agassi took until 21 to even PLAY Wimbledon. Nadal at 23 has already made more Wimbledon finals than Agassi, despite missing out on a likely atleast final this year with injury.
Agassi at the time of turning 29 was still only a 3 slam champion, half of what Rafa is at 23. From 93-98 when Sampras bagged 10 of his career majors and ended 6 straight years at #1 Agassi managed the quarters or better of only 8 slams, and managed a year end ranking in the top 5 only twice. Put the 2005-2010 version of Nadal up against the 1993-1998 version of Agassi and Agassi is lucky if he spends 5 weeks ranked ahead. So yes as far as the bigger threat and stronger opponent to the #1 ranking, Rafa during Federer's reign >>>>> Agassi during Sampras's reign.
Last edited:
Andres
G.O.A.T.
286 weeks. 50 weeks (almost a whole year) more than Federer.
GameSampras
Banned
Lets see where Nadal's career heads first...before he label him as a better rival to Fed than Andre was to Pete. Andre has the grand slam and 2 slams more than Nadal. Not to mention Andre had some ridiculous longevity whereas Nadal can just crash and burn by the time he is 25.
Agassi and Sampras had a rivalry going for more than 10 years and played winning tennis into their early to mid 30s. Nadal is already breaking down at 23.
that's the second best player of this decade, and he's already won a HC slam. Remind me what's the record of the best player of the 90s on clay?
Lol, it's funny how samptards bring up nadal's lack of "success" on HC, yet conveniently forgetting their idol's performance on clay :twisted:
Ummm that is the point. Over half of Agassi's slams (5 of 8 ), the completion of his career slam (and his first even semi-noteable title of any kind on clay), his most consistent tennis by far, as well as the longevity his career greatness is largely founded upon, all happened AFTER the Sampras reign of 93-98 where Pete set his 6 straight years #1 mark and had already bagged 11 of his eventaul 14 slams. That is why Nadal is by far the stronger player and rival during the Federer reign vs Agassi during the Sampras reign, atleast the #1 reign which the poster you responded to was speaking in context of. Most of Agassi's career greatness is founded upon what happened after the Samrpas's 6 straight years at #1 were over with. Based on just 93-98 alone vs what Rafa already has been and done in 2005-2009 he doesnt even come close to being as strong an opponent or player during that period.
GameSampras
Banned
Agassi was good on clay.. What are u talking about? 2 RG finals appearances and the 99 French Open title. Where has Nadal been at the USO? Has he even reached a final?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
goes to show the depth of clay today....:twisted:
aphex
Banned
GameSampras
Banned
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Yea the 00's have produced so many clay court giants.
The greatest clay court player of all time came from the 2000s.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
borg???? that explains why he dominated his peers... he came from the future!
GameSampras
Banned
2nd greatest.. But where are the rest?
How can he be 2nd greatest? Doesnt he play in a weak era. oh my bad. It only applies to Fed
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
No, greatest. Nadal, will win more French Opens and he has the longest clay court winning streak of all time.
GameSampras
Banned
How can he be 2nd greatest? Doesnt he play in a weak era. oh my bad. It only applies to Fed
2nd greatest of all time below Borg.
grafselesfan
Banned
You can only play who is on the other side and he is 100% dominant vs the weak clay field he does face on clay, only losing the odd match with injury or extreme fatigue. Unlike Federer who is not dominant the same way vs the weak overall field due to his losses in slam finals to Nadal on all surfaces.
tennisdad65
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, few care or remember who #1 was and for how long.
The only number that matters to most is the total grandslam's won. That's just the way the media has compared greats in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
The only number that matters to most is the total grandslam's won. That's just the way the media has compared greats in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
Sampraz finished year end #1 six years in a row. Federer only managed 4 consecutive years because someone, Nadal, was good enough to take the year end ranking from him.
President
Legend
Rafael Nadal is definitely a better player and tougher rival than Agassi ever was. He is much more consistant, has more talent (based on his results at such a young age), and most importantly of all has a mental toughness that is unmatched. Just by watching him, you can tell he is a better player than everyone in the 90's apart from Sampras. No one posed a big enough threat to unseat Sampras like Nadal did to Federer. So you really can't hold the year end #1 record against Federer; if he were in the 90's in Pete's place I'm 99% sure he would have the same if not better record.
darthpwner
Banned
pete played in a stronger era than borg and tilden
I certainly agree that we can't fault Pete for who he played against, and how they played. But you do have a few assumptions that aren't necessarily true.
For starters, you claim that Sampras is the best grass court player to have ever lived. Well Federer now has 6 Wimbledons vs Sampras' 7, so he's only 1 behind, and Federer won it 5 times in a row, while Sampras record was 4. The year that Sampras didn't make it ending his chance at 5 in a row, he was knocked out in the quarters by Kraijeck. Federer on the other hand lost in the finals, which means he has made 7 straight Wimbledon finals. So Sampras has pretty much lost this title as well, and if Federer does win it once more, then Sampras has definitely lost this title. Personally 7 straight Wimbledon finals and winning 6 of them, is better then 4 straight finals then the quarters then 3 straight times for a total of 7.
I never put Sampras in the GOAT category for various reasons but the biggest was his horrible record at the French Open. Yes, Sampras did finish number 1 six years in a row, but I'm sorry that is nowhere near as impressive as 237 straight weeks at number 1 which Federer did.
Are you serious? Probably the greatest clay courter to have ever lived, 81 straight clay court wins. And yes Agassi was good on every surface, but he had to rededicate himself and it wasn't until age 29 that he won the French Open. (by the way this isn't to take anything away from Andre, as he was amazing, am just showing how long it took to get it). And you do realize that if Nadal pulls off winning the US Open, which could happen, he'd have done it all by age 23.
I mean this argument is one of the weakest you've put up.
Borg actually has 6.
Last edited:
Polaris
Hall of Fame
I don't think that Sampras's Slam record was tarnished at all.
And anyway, No. 1 for 6 years is an artificial record in the sense that he lost it a few times, i.e., He was not No.1 all the time, but got there at the end of the year. If he was World No. 1 for 312 consecutive weeks, then I would consider it on par with 14 Slams.
As things stand, I think that his legacy, untarnished in spite of all the GOAT talk, is best represented by his 14 Slams. The fact that Federer got to 14 should not diminish Sampras's achievement in the slightest.
xHBvi3tbOix
Rookie
Sampras never had anyone to challenge his #1 ranking?
Ever heard of Andre Agassi (8 majors), Stefan Edberg(6), Courier(4), Goran Ivanisevic (1, although he did make it to Wimby finals), Boris Becker (6), Michael Chang (youngest to win French?), Ivan Lendl (8).
Even late in Sampras' reign he had to deal with up and coming players, like Safin, Andy Roddick, Hewitt, Rafter, and Guga
in 92' Courier was ranked 1 and Edberg finished 2nd, and Sampras had the no.3 spot.
I believe Agassi actually took the no.1 spot from Sampras as well. So to say that Sampras did not have any competition is like saying Roger Federer doesnt play tennis.
You cannot reverse the argument and say Sampras had to deal with a weak generation because as we can see he did not. Several of Sampras' competitors ended up in the Hall.
Similar threads
