26 year old Sampras would have regularly beaten 26 year old Federer

If player A regularly beats player B then player B is not a champion

In the history of tennis, no player has ever, never, regularly beaten a champion.

Federer is a champion.

Ergo..

c.
 

Klatu Verata Necktie

Hall of Fame
If a player beats another half the time, does that count as beating them regularly? If so, then they may have beat each other regularly (although IMO Federer would have won more "regularly" than Sampras).
 

superman1

Legend
Agassi never said Fed would beat Sampras most of the time, he just said that it's tougher for him to play Fed than it is to play Sampras. That doesn't really mean anything since Agassi played Fed from the baseline, and Sampras wouldn't be caught dead back there. Federer is more consistent, but Sampras was more impressive to me when he was peaking in a match.

Who the hell knows. Would have been the greatest tennis ever produced, though.
 

Thrasher

Rookie
I think it would be a pretty even match up in they're primes. I just don't see Federer breaking Sampras's serve in his prime. Sampras would definitely have to come to the net to have any chanceagainst Federer. I think whoever broke serve first would win the match.
 

FedForGOAT

Professional
I think it would be a pretty even match up in they're primes. I just don't see Federer breaking Sampras's serve in his prime. Sampras would definitely have to come to the net to have any chanceagainst Federer. I think whoever broke serve first would win the match.
Sampras' serve is breakable. just b/c its hard, doesn't mean its impossible. And I don't see Sampras breaking Fed's serve when Fed is playing his best.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
If player A regularly beats player B then player B is not a champion

In the history of tennis, no player has ever, never, regularly beaten a champion.

Federer is a champion.

Ergo..

c.
Huh? Maybe Federer is a champion because Sampras wasn't around to beat him?

Just like Agassi could have won a lot more US Opens and Wimbledons if Sampras wasn't around to beat him.

And Roddick would have more Wimbledons and US Opens if Federer wasn't around to beat him.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Sampras' serve is breakable. just b/c its hard, doesn't mean its impossible. And I don't see Sampras breaking Fed's serve when Fed is playing his best.
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve? :confused:

Ask the greatest returner who has ever lived, Andre Agassi, how many times he has broken Sampras' serve on a fast surface.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve? :confused:

Ask the greatest returner who has ever lived, Andre Agassi, how many times he has broken Sampras' serve on a fast surface.
You're asking some random internet poster if he had broken Sampras's serve?!?
Just because Sampras has the best serve ever doesn't mean he is unbreakable.Ivanisevic(who is a worse returner than Federer I hope you'll atleast aknowledge that) in 4 matches he played against Sampras at Wimbledon(fast surface) broke Sampras 7 times.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
Would be a godo matchup. I could see Sampras overwhelming fed with power and great volleying plenty of times.

Nalby came to the net a fair bit in his last 2 wins v Fed. He just played solid offensice tennis and really had Fed stretching and did the business with the minimum of fuss, so I don't see why Sampras couldnt do the same regularly.


I think it would be a pretty even match up in they're primes. I just don't see Federer breaking Sampras's serve in his prime. Sampras would definitely have to come to the net to have any chanceagainst Federer. I think whoever broke serve first would win the match.
 

Ripper

Hall of Fame
Who knows... but a 50 year old Federer would beat a 50 year old Sampras, every time. Why? Because of the hair. Yes, the hair. Federer will have plenty, while Sampras will have none. Confidence baby.
 

OrangeOne

Legend
Would have been the greatest tennis ever produced, though.
Not sure about that, who knows - one may have quickly figured the other out. On paper, Roddick v. Federer looks enticing, we know what the reality is. It may have been a battle for a match or two, and then plain-sailing for one of the two from there. We'll never know....
 

OrangeOne

Legend
I will add this: anyone assuming that Sampras would overpower / out-serve / volley-away Federer consistently needs to seriously think about Federer. He's showed himself to be one of the most adaptable champions we've ever seen, and he has a lot of fight. Not too many players ever turn around a 1-6 rivalry, Federer almost has against Nadal. Not too many players can win with S&V or from the baseline.

I'll say this: if either player had to adapt to gain ascendency in matches between the two, my money's on Fed.
 

2 Cent

Rookie
take Federer out of the equation, and Sampras would dominate this thin crop of players... Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake. etc.

infact, Agassi would dominate these guys too.
 
take Federer out of the equation, and Sampras would dominate this thin crop of players... Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake. etc.

infact, Agassi would dominate these guys too.
Keep dreaming. How often did Agassi dominate the field outside Sampras? Pretty much never. He was unable to dominate quite a few players not as good as Nadal, and not much better then Djokovic or Roddick.
 

Steve132

Professional
Huh? Have you broken Sampras' serve? :confused:

Ask the greatest returner who has ever lived, Andre Agassi, how many times he has broken Sampras' serve on a fast surface.
Are you claiming that Sampras could not lose on a fast service? Results suggest otherwise.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Are you claiming that Sampras could not lose on a fast service? Results suggest otherwise.
No, but ask Agassi, the best returner who ever lived, how many times he has beaten Sampras at either Wimbledon or the US Open (both fast surfaces)?

I'll save you the trouble. The answer is ZERO. He's 0-6.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Keep dreaming. How often did Agassi dominate the field outside Sampras? Pretty much never. He was unable to dominate quite a few players not as good as Nadal, and not much better then Djokovic or Roddick.
I'm starting to think you never played nor followed tennis before 2002.
 

edmondsm

Legend
No, but ask Agassi, the best returner who ever lived, how many times he has beaten Sampras at either Wimbledon or the US Open (both fast surfaces)?

I'll save you the trouble. The answer is ZERO. He's 0-6.
Sampras certainly owned Agassi on the fast courts, but you know who he didn't? Lleyton Hewitt. Hewitt has a 2-1 record against Pete on grass, and a 3-3 record against Samp on hard-courts. Including that spanking in the 01' USO final.

I would say that Fed would hold a slight advantage over Pete if they were the same age. Fed's all around game would overcome the advantage in the service department.
 
I'm starting to think you never played nor followed tennis before 2002.
I am starting to think you have no goal in life except to post whatever crap comes into your head just with the goal to reach 20, 000 posts and prove yourself the biggest loser in history. You are well on your way, keep it up.
 
Sampras certainly owned Agassi on the fast courts, but you know who he didn't? Lleyton Hewitt. Hewitt has a 2-1 record against Pete on grass, and a 3-3 record against Samp on hard-courts. Including that spanking in the 01' USO final.

I would say that Fed would hold a slight advantage over Pete if they were the same age. Fed's all around game would overcome the advantage in the service department.
In fairness matches in 2001 or after Hewitt would have the advantage, he was in his prime then and Pete clearly was not. However matches in 1999 and 2000 are another story and Hewitt was trouble for Pete even then. So you do have a valid point.
 
The best returner who ever lived was Jimmy Connors. Pete did not play him until he was 39 years old so who knows how his serve would have stood up vs the real best returner who ever lived in his prime.
 

quest01

Hall of Fame
Agassi said Federer is better than Sampras, and Federer said Agassi was not lying :)

http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Tennis/0,,2-9-1517_1768884,00.html
Agassi is the perfect person to ask in determining who is better between Sampras and Federer. He played both players when they were both in there prime, while Federer is still in his prime. Agassi is really the only person to ask if you want an honest assessment on which player is better, Sampras or Federer. I respect Agassi's decision and agree with him that Federer is the better player.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I am starting to think you have no goal in life except to post whatever crap comes into your head just with the goal to reach 20, 000 posts and prove yourself the biggest loser in history. You are well on your way, keep it up.
You mean like this post of yours above? ^^^^

There's not even any need for you to have to prove to anyone you're a loser because it's obvious for everyone here to plainly see. But I guess you're used to losing by now. Once a loser, always a loser. What a shame. :cry:
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
In fairness matches in 2001 or after Hewitt would have the advantage, he was in his prime then and Pete clearly was not. However matches in 1999 and 2000 are another story and Hewitt was trouble for Pete even then. So you do have a valid point.
Huh? That's proves how little you know about tennis.

Sampras beat Hewitt the first 3 times they played in '98, '99, and 2000. Then later at the 2000 US Open, Sampras beat Hewitt in straight sets in the semis.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Huh? That's proves how little you know about tennis.

Sampras beat Hewitt the first 3 times they played in '98, '99, and 2000. Then later at the 2000 US Open, Sampras beat Hewitt in straight sets in the semis.
I believe the comment was "giving Sampras trouble". Which he was. In 99' Hewitt took a set off Samp at Queens. Alot more than your almighty Agassi could do at Wimbledon a few weeks later. Sampras only has one other straight sets victory over Hewitt and it was when he was 18 years old.

The point is that Sampras's serve was great, but nothing is perfect, and Hewitt with his great return and movement showed that it could be challenged. Something that Fed would have no problem doing if they peaked at the same time.
 

superman1

Legend
I believe the comment was "giving Sampras trouble". Which he was. In 99' Hewitt took a set off Samp at Queens. Alot more than your almighty Agassi could do at Wimbledon a few weeks later. Sampras only has one other straight sets victory over Hewitt and it was when he was 18 years old.

The point is that Sampras's serve was great, but nothing is perfect, and Hewitt with his great return and movement showed that it could be challenged. Something that Fed would have no problem doing if they peaked at the same time.
Okay, but then Agassi spanked Sampras on a fast indoor court in the RR Masters Cup, and then he got spanked by Sampras in the final. These things fluctuate...

Federer has a very different return from Agassi, who has a very different return from Hewitt. The one constant is that no one can comfortably return Sampras' serve.
 

Mick

Legend
If you look at the grand slam titles that both have won at age 26, they are tied right now:

Sampras won 1998 Wimbledon (6/22/1998 - Born 8/12/1971)
Federer won 2007 US Open (9/9/2007 - Born 8/8/1981)

Chances are Federer is going to win more grand slam titles at age 26 than Sampras before he turns 27 in August 2008
 
I believe the comment was "giving Sampras trouble". Which he was. In 99' Hewitt took a set off Samp at Queens.
Exactly. Someone does not neccessarily have to beat someone to be giving them trouble, although I would advise you to not try and explain this to BreakPoint as even simple logic such as that is far too much for his pea brain to handle without exploding. Hewitt took Sampras to 3 sets two of the first three times they played, and even that U.S Open match which went to two tiebreaks and had Hewitt with a set point in the first set was definitely "giving trouble".
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
Yup........
Who are you kidding, Sampras had one huge weapon, his serve as we all know. And what is regularly anyway, until he would play him on clay or any other semislow surface? Listen Im not all that big a Fed fan, Nadal is my favorite player but I can give him his just due, there is nothing that man can't do, he has no weaknesses, i know a lot of people may lose their marbles over this but guess what...Sampras was one dimensional!!! On grass in both their primes Sampras probably wins I can agree with that, but to say regularly is just out of the question I take Federer on any other surface, and if I remeber correctly Federer does not lose to big serves, example: Andy Roddick no matter how well he plays, when Federer loses its to the great defenders, example: Nadal, Canas. I think this discussion is just another case of people getting a little to excited about a couple of exhibitions in which Federer didn't want to make his idol looks bad and considering them legit matches, lets not forget Roddick beat Fed a week before the Aussie Open in an exo... how'd that go?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Exactly. Someone does not neccessarily have to beat someone to be giving them trouble, although I would advise you to not try and explain this to BreakPoint as even simple logic such as that is far too much for his pea brain to handle without exploding. Hewitt took Sampras to 3 sets two of the first three times they played, and even that U.S Open match which went to two tiebreaks and had Hewitt with a set point in the first set was definitely "giving trouble".
You mean like the way Sampras was "giving trouble" to Federer in the match that went to two tiebreaks in Kuala Lumpur?
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
Sampras managed to win a biggertitle on clay than Federer has so far and he did it playing some of the best claycourt tennis ever seen

Who are you kidding, Sampras had one huge weapon, his serve as we all know. And what is regularly anyway, until he would play him on clay or any other semislow surface? Listen Im not all that big a Fed fan, Nadal is my favorite player but I can give him his just due, there is nothing that man can't do, he has no weaknesses, i know a lot of people may lose their marbles over this but guess what...Sampras was one dimensional!!! On grass in both their primes Sampras probably wins I can agree with that, but to say regularly is just out of the question I take Federer on any other surface, and if I remeber correctly Federer does not lose to big serves, example: Andy Roddick no matter how well he plays, when Federer loses its to the great defenders, example: Nadal, Canas. I think this discussion is just another case of people getting a little to excited about a couple of exhibitions in which Federer didn't want to make his idol looks bad and considering them legit matches, lets not forget Roddick beat Fed a week before the Aussie Open in an exo... how'd that go?
 
Last edited:
You mean like the way Sampras was "giving trouble" to Federer in the match that went to two tiebreaks in Kuala Lumpur?
Actually the match I was referring to was instead a competitive match on something called the ATP Tour. You might want to look into the difference between that and an exhibition, again if your pea brain can handle such information without exploding.
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
Sampras managed to win a biggertitle on clay than Federer has so far and he did it playing some of the best claycourt tennis ever seen
ok tni, your just a joke, still think that sampras legitly beat Fed about a week ago and that sampras is better than this years shanghai field? or how about that federer's aces were a product of Fed turning it up and not Sampras being slow on returns because hes old, and if Sampras played some of the best clay court tennis ever, being the natural and all, not play it at Roland Garros, do yourself a favor and please pull your head out of Sampras'......
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Actually the match I was referring to was instead a competitive match on something called the ATP Tour. You might want to look into the difference between that and an exhibition, again if your pea brain can handle such information without exploding.
You mean like the way Sampras was "taking it easy on Hewitt" the way Federer was "taking it easy" on Sampras?

You Federer trolls just never cease to amaze me.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
have a bad day today eh?

ok tni, your just a joke, still think that sampras legitly beat Fed about a week ago and that sampras is better than this years shanghai field? or how about that federer's aces were a product of Fed turning it up and not Sampras being slow on returns because hes old, and if Sampras played some of the best clay court tennis ever, being the natural and all, not play it at Roland Garros, do yourself a favor and please pull your head out of Sampras'......
 

Steve132

Professional
If you look at the grand slam titles that both have won at age 26, they are tied right now:

Sampras won 1998 Wimbledon (6/22/1998 - Born 8/12/1971)
Federer won 2007 US Open (9/9/2007 - Born 8/8/1981)

Chances are Federer is going to win more grand slam titles at age 26 than Sampras before he turns 27 in August 2008
Um....not quite.

If we are to compare them at the same age we need to look at the number of Slams they had won by December 1997 and December 2007 respectively.

As of December 1997 Sampras had won 10 Slams. Federer now has 12.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
“I think if he was still playing he would be a top five player.” Federer confessed to public on how weak his competition is after a straight sets lost to a much better player Pete Sampras.
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
have a bad day today eh?
Ok man look, lets be real, if your gonna make a point make it and back it up with legit facts, not fantasies of what you want to believe, i get that Sampras is your favorite player, thats cool he was a great champion, as for me: surprise Nadal is my favorite player not Federer, but I don't run from reality i look at it and make my points from an impartial perspective with the facts to support them, so please don't let your obsession fog the reality, sound good?
 

flyer

Hall of Fame
“I think if he was still playing he would be a top five player.” Federer confessed to public on how weak his competition is after a straight sets lost to a much better player Pete Sampras.

Where did you find this quote? Are your sure the source is credible? And if so how can you defend this, Pete wasn't top five when he retired and that was five years ago. If this is real and Fed actually said this how can you be sure this wasn't a bit of lip service to his idol.
 
Top