Better athlete: Federer or Sampras

better athlete?

  • Sampras

    Votes: 53 28.5%
  • Federer

    Votes: 133 71.5%

  • Total voters
    186

dangalak

Banned
I wanted to compare Sampras and Nadal, but many would dismiss Pete because of his lack of stamina.

So I am comparing him to a lesser athlete in Federer. Who is more athletic in your opinion.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras
 
Feather-light movement and footwork, stamina = Federer

Explosive movement, vertical jump, pure speed = Sampras
Exactly.

I think Federer probably has a clear edge in endurance as well. Sampras rarely had to endure long grueling baseline battles to win majors.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
 
Last edited:

MTF07

Semi-Pro
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
Of course. And Pete would have won 25 majors without this blood disorder.
 

roundiesee

Hall of Fame
I would think Pete had a slight edge (and bearing in mind he had Thalassemia); I have never seen anyone move so explosively and with such an intent on offense as Pete Sampras.
 

Bjorn99

Hall of Fame
High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.

And Federer's sudden out of nowhere concentration?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE5uv7j25Us&feature=plcp I would wager that he is fully hip to these.
 

gsharma

Professional
High levels of testosterone rob one of ones hair. If Pete was able to dunk a basketball, I would pledge that a large part of that was due to his enhancements. Look at pictures of him when he was around 13. Stick legs.

Later on, he went to the longer pant that we now all use, and I swore he used those pants to hide the orangutang legs that he had "developed".

I think Federer's enhancements were more in the way of stamina and quickness. Pete went for power.
You don't believe in lifting weights and getting stronger, do you? By the way, Pete could dunk a tennis ball, not a basketball which would require a higher vertical jump.
 

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
So, in essence, whoever can dunk a standard 10 foot rim is a better athlete than one who cannot. Gotcha.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Lets see Fed do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emPy439hmCQ



I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got


Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
He could dunk a volleyball, not a basketball.
 
Most of those "slam dunks" aren't even lobs intended to go over Sampras. He generally performed that move for effect.

I think I saw him try it vs. Haas one match and it wasn't nearly close to the hops Sampras got
But since nobody has measured, we'll never know. I'm sure Federer can jump plenty high.

Fed has more endurance.. But thats mainly because Sampras had a blood disorder which zapped a lot of his endurance away.
Mainly? Federer lays waste to a line of hitting partners in 120 degree weather. The man is a phenom.

Sampras could also dunk a basketball on the standard 10 foot rim. . I highly doubt Roger can
Also? You already mentioned Sampras' vertical leaps. In fact that's all you've given him.

Athleticism- Pete by a country mile
Endurance-Roger
Nonsense. Nobody moves or has ever moved on a tennis court with the quickness and anticipation of Federer. It's not even close. His first movement to the ball is lightning quick and his footwork his unparalleled.

And I've watched a lot of and appreciate Sampras. You're a fanboy without any objectivity.
 

BorisBeckerFan

Professional
I am not sure what there is to compare really. Pete was a beast, an absolute animal. Federer is more graceful and has better stamina. What Pete has over Fed in sheer explosiveness Fed more than makes up for with amazing footwork and anticipation. Totally different types of players in my opinion. Also depends a lot on what one values in an athlete. Obviously these 2 being particularly gifted.
 

BorisBeckerFan

Professional
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8

I'm pretty sure that's better than half the stuff in the Sampras video. And it's pretty sad if you're using the ability to jump high as the sole comparison for athleticism.
Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.
 

Raging Buddha

Semi-Pro
Well I think Fed is every bit the athlete that Pete was just in different ways but your example isn't any where near the level that was displayed in the previously posted video. I do agree that jumping high as the only basis for comparison is laughable. Anticipation and footwork are key areas where Fed has an edge over Pete.
Of course there was several dunks in the Sampras version that were better, it's just that that dunk was quite a bit better than some of the dunks in the Sampras video.

But this one is probably better than the Wimbledon one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ROSEAOmB8
 
Last edited:

scotus

G.O.A.T.
They're both amazing athletes.

But it's obvious Federer is the better tennis player.
I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
I don't think it's that obvious.

Federer is a more complete player, but Sampras' service game is incredibly difficult to break, and Federer cannot chip back the return like he does against Roddick and so many other big servers who cannot volley to back up their serves.

As JMac once said, sometimes it would not matter how pretty Federer's game is, Sampras could just bludgeon him with power.

I think they would have a lot of close, memorable matches.
17 > 14

10federers
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
Yes, let your inner ******* shine! :)
Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.
Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.
 
Last edited:

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Love how you accuse me of being a ******* once I bring up proper facts and statistics to the table. Just look at their resumes. It is blatantly obvious Federer is the more accomplished and consistent player.

But then again, this is TW. I shouldn't be surprised.
Well, my apologies. I guess the smiley face didn't do much there.

I thought the baby on your avatar was so cute that I sort of made the connection between the baby and your inner ... that.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.
 
Last edited:

firepanda

Professional
Sampras relied almost entirely on a massive serve and short rallies. Any of the top 10 now are vastly more athletic than him.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Rosol has a 1-0 H2H against Nadal in slam counters. By your logic he would be the true GOAT.

H2H only comes into consideration if the players are equal in terms of achievement. Once Nadal wins 17 slams, then we'll talk.
Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?

I was only kidding about you being a ******* previously, but it actually may be true.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
Seriously?

You are comparing the multiple slam finals between Fed and Nadal to a one-time encounter between Nadal and Rosol?
What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the better player?
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
What exactly are you trying to say? That because Federer has lost to Nadal on multiple occasions, Sampras is somehow the btter player?
Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
Let me clarify this for you.

Nadal has fewer slams than Federer, yet Nadal beats Federer more often.

Therefore, just because Federer has more slams than Sampras doesn't necessarily mean he would clearly beat Sampras.
I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Yes, let your inner ******* shine! :)

There's someone with a lower slam count than that of Sampras and he has been beating Federer in many of their slam final encounters.
So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer

Keeping in mind that the majority of Fed's slam losses to Nadal came at FO where Sampras never even sniffed a final.

But seriously, with Nadal being there, you ought to know that the slam count alone doesn't make one a better tennis player than the other, especially when it comes to head to head.
Actually in slams that Nadal has beaten Fed he's mostly as good or better than Fed.

At the FO which is where most of their slam meetings took place he's obviously much better than Fed.

On AO's plexicushion (introduced in 2008) Nadal has one title, same as Fed.

Sure, Nadal also beat Fed in a Wimbledon final but he has an overall losing record against Fed in that regard (Wimbledon finals).
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
I'm not saying that Federer would beat Sampras 1 on 1 in a tennis match.
I'm saying that overall, Federer is the better and more accomplished tennis player.
There is a difference between the two.
I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.

Then you responded to that by saying 17 is greater than 14.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
So because Nadal (a completely different player than Sampras) has been beating Federer in slam finals that automatically means that:

-Sampras would also dominate Fed in slam finals
-Nadal is a better player than Federer
-Sampras is a better player than Federer
What have you been drinking?

I would refer you back to my Post #31.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
I already acknowledged that Fed is the more complete player. Then I followed it up by saying that even with the complete package that Federer brings to the table, Sampras still would not be easily beaten because his serves are so difficult to break.
Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Federer: 868–194 (81.73% WR)
Sampras: 762–222 (77.43% WR)

It is also blatantly obvious who is the easier player to beat. Sampras. By miles.
Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)
 
Last edited:

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Not Isner...

God only knows how he got in the top 10.
Okay, so let's take Isner out of there then.

I'll say Tipsarevic has more endurance than Sampras, but you think he is "vastly more athletic" than Sampras?

And you really think Delpo is "vastly more athletic" than sampras?

What's your definition of "vastly"?

IMHO, neither of the two is more athletic than Sampras.
 
Last edited:

firepanda

Professional
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
Do we not agree that Federer is the more accomplished and more complete player between the two?

I think you just agreed with me in the previous post that the records do not necessarily dictate how the two players would have faired head to head.

So what purpose does this winning percentage serve now? (not to mention the different eras and the fact that one is retired and the other still competing with Fed's percentage set to drop lower the longer he stays on tour)
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
Matches are much longer, there are more shots per rally, players have to run further distances. No-one can deny this. Tennis players have had to become very physically fit to cope with the higher demand of their bodies. Sampras never was that fit anyway, especially given his style.
Athleticism cannot be defined by endurance alone.

Even when Agassi was at the height of his fitness and had arguably better endurance than most of the ATP pros today, Sampras could come out, even when he wasn't at his best, and defeat Agassi.

Sampras may have lacked endurance, but he had the cat-like burst of speed that is rarely seen even today.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
In your previous post, you stated that Sampras would be the harder play to break and therefore implied that he would be harder to beat.

His winning percentage says otherwise.
Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
Unlike Federer who tries to win every tournament he enters, Sampras didn't take the lesser tournaments as seriously, hence the lower percentage.

Even so, the percentages are quite close. I don't know how you define "miles".
If you've played that much matches, a difference of five percent is pretty decent.

Federer has won more than a hundred matches than Sampras.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
What have you been drinking?
Ice-tea mostly but I'm sober don't worry.

I would refer you back to my Post #31.
OK, I agree overall that because player A has more slams than player B it doesn't mean that player would beat player B more often than vice versa, I mean that's kinda obvious, matches aren't decided on paper, they have to be played out.

However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.

Also as I said, Nadal beating Fed mostly at FO has no bearing on how a hypothetical match-up between Sampras and Fed would go, every match-up is unique and all we have to go regarding Fed and Sampras is one single match which is far too small of a sample and neither player was anywhere near his best on top of that (Fed was still years from his peak/prime while Sampras was years past it).
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I don't mean to get involved, but I think he agrees with you that Federer is the more formidable player....just that Sampras wouldn't be easy to beat and that the discrepancy isn't titantic.
Yes but what has Fed-Nadal H2H got to do with that? Personally I'm getting a bit tired from Sampras fans constantly using that particular match-up as *proof* that Sampras would also beat Fed in big matches more so than vice versa.

Nadal is a completely different player than Sampras so drawing parallels there requires simplifying things to a ridiculous degree i.e Nadal is a great player so him having a dominant H2H against Fed in slams automatically means Sampras would as well because he's also a great player.
 

scotus

G.O.A.T.
However, tennis is a game where you're valued for your performance against the field not against any specific player (otherwise Rosol and Bastl for example would be known as better grasscourt players than say Goran or Murray simply because they took bigger scalps at Wimbledon), in that regard considering Fed to be a better/greater player than Sampras is hardly some controversial thought.
You are still not following the thread closely.

There is no disagreement over whether or not Fed is a more complete player or more accomplished than Sampras.

In the context of this thread which compares the athleticism of the two players, if someone says Federer is no doubt the better tennis player, I would be inclined to interpret that as a claim that Federer would have had a clear head-to-head advantage over Sampras.
 
Top